Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/April 2014

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form; any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

[Posted] Century of centuries

 * Weak support - This certainly seems to be an outstanding achievement in the field - or on the baize, as the case may be. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there any coverage of this beyond ESPN? 331dot (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The game ended 30 mins ago. Wait for the morning, and the UK should be full of it. See this thread for news when he got to 99. Nergaal (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Added a few that I found today. Nergaal (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Question What does "Normally such a record would be shut down" mean? HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be against posting incremental seasonal records in scoring sports such as when he got the #62 (even if it was soccer); that is unless the record is really notable for a landmark such as is the case here. Nergaal (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you mean "shot down", as in quickly rejected? 331dot (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe that's it. I'm still confused. I didn't think Nergaal's post was an answer to my question. HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nergaal is saying that nominations of this nature are routinely rejected, but that this one might be special enough to warrant posting anyway. Resolute 23:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If that's really what he's saying, he's not saying it very clearly, and therefore is distracting from his nomination. HiLo48 (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly clear to me. Thryduulf (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ×2 I read it as "Normally a nomination to post a sporting record like this on ITN would be quickly rejected. However this event is such a significant milestone and so much beyond the previous record that it is worth posting.", and to me at least Nergaal's latest comment backs up that interpretation. Maybe it's a variety of English thing? Thryduulf (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was reading it as referring to something internal, within the sport, like somehow preventing someone from scoring, and effectively therefore part of the story. But you're saying it isn't? HiLo48 (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't part of the story. Snooker is turn-based, once someone is at the table there is no way to prevent them scoring if they pot a ball. The challenge is to leave the balls in such a position at the end of your turn that it is as difficult as possible for your opponent to legally pot a ball (ideally so difficult it is not possible at all). Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I was trying to say that normally breaking records in less-popular sports is usually a snow-oppose. In this case, the record is sufficiently outstanding to break through that lower threshold of popularity. Nergaal (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Unsure at this point, I want to see how much coverage this actually gets in the media. Thryduulf (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've posted some links, including some outside of UK. Nergaal (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support now that coverage is clear. This is being treated as significant and none of the opposes below are relevant, so I don't see a reason not to post. Thryduulf (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Trivial pub sport, probably best suited to the lower echelon frontpage section. It's not exactly in the same league as Sachin Tendulkar's 100 centuries, is it?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you ever seen snooker played in a pub? I know I haven't.  The Senior Conservative club, or perhaps the smoking room of the Dorchester, might be a different matter.  GoldenRing (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Yes I have. It was a big pub, too.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 14:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am surprised by these reactions. I have seen a bunch of random people play cricked on a side-walk, but that does not make a century record in cricket not notable. I am pretty sure that some of the snooker players these days beat ANY cricket players in terms of winnings and sponsorship. Please go check List of snooker millionaires for your self-education. Nergaal (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * After looking at the cricked records, I would say that Tendulkar's record would be comparable to 1000 career centuries (i.e. not in a season) in snooker. Nergaal (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Then you know nothing about cricket. Or "cricked".  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Then you know nothing about how little you know sir. Nergaal (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Call me back when someone plays 100 Test or ODI matches in one year.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - seems to be a record that is actually cared about in the sport (unlike the last one of these) and not something that is likely to be beat any time soon. However, the article will need improved - the first two sections are basically unreferenced. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added a bunch of refs, especially to those tow sections. Nergaal (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There are bigger sport stories we haven't included recently.  Calidum   17:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Such as? Nergaal (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Tons. Have a look back through the archive if you can manage it.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear troller, point to a single one out of those tons. Nergaal (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support a decent record and a sport which is highly under-represented given the global interest. Recent stories we didn't run have no effect at all on this nomination.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Why the hell not? If it's never been done before and has never been done again, do it. Pull the trigger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.223 (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support This IS a great and unique achievement. I was puzzled by the nomination (and I still think the title isn't very helpful), but now I know what it is I'm all for it. HiLo48 (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. This seems like a significant achievement, and a chance to post about a sport that we don't usually. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I have to admit that I didn't know the difference between pool and snooker before this nom but after looking at the sources it became quite clear that this is a significant and newsworthy achievement in the sport. AgneCheese/Wine 22:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Post-posting support''' Just wanted to mention I'm delighted to see this on ITN. Massive achievement in a popular sport, should be up there. Fgf10 (talk) 06:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't otherwise be posted? Eh, isn't snooker listed in WP:ITNR? – H T  D  07:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The world championship is, but obviously this sort of record is not really amenable to ITN/R. GoldenRing (talk) 08:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but an ITNR event can also lead to other blurbs which are related to it. Not all the time, though. – H T  D  16:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams arrested for murder

 * Oppose - Too early. We do not even know if he is arrested really. If he is charged or found guilty of this murder then perhaps.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The BBC is calling it an arrest: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-27232731 Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The arrest is news now(Adams also acknowledged he was arrested); any potential future action might not be, as much at least. 331dot (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I guarantee that if Adams is convicted or even charged that will be big news - bigger that this, I would say. Neljack (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

*Support. Political leaders being arrested for murder is a rare occurrence. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. This is huge, major figure arrested in a significant case.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. A well-known international leader arrested for murder. Adams is a figure who draws plenty of interest. Mvblair (talk) 21:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - He has not been arrested for the murder, which implies he has subsequently been charged with it; he has been arrested in connection with the case. Even if a charge is brought, it could easily be for something like conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. It's further been suggested (by SF, admittedly) that the timing of this event is nakedly political. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Innocent until proven guilty. HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No one is saying he is guilty or innocent; just that he was arrested. Notable political figures being arrested for alleged involvement in serious crimes is notable. It doesn't mean he did it. 331dot (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. The arrest itself is notable.  Calidum   22:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe so. But as written, the blurb is simply wrong. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support the arrest is notable. I've written an altblurb to clarify that he has been arrested "in connection with" the murder (a standard phrasing in the UK at least) rather than arrested on suspicion of being the murderer. Thryduulf (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb. Mvblair (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose on BLP grounds Posting this will give a misleading impression to anyone not familiar with the details of English criminal procedure. An arrest in England does not have the same significance as an arrest in the US or other countries. Really all this boils down to is that Adams voluntarily went to the police and they arrested him so that he would have more rights when he was questioned. But how many readers are going to realise that when they see the blurb? It is an entirely routine step that in no way suggests that the police intend to charge him or indeed that they have any evidence against him. This article gives a good explanation about arrests in England.. Neljack (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I will add that several of the support votes are based on factual inaccuracies, not surprisingly in light of the blurb. Adams has not been arrested "for murder" or even for "alleged involvement in serious crimes". Neljack (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose per Neljack. I don't believe we have ever posted a mere questioning by the police before, and for good reason - reporting questioning implies a level of guilt or at least strong suspicion, a serious BLP problem.  No problem revisiting if/when he is charged with something. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Oscar P? μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose now; the more I read about this, the less I support it. 331dot (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The consensus is to post convictions. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose If he is convicted, then post.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Total BLP violation as drafted. Wait to see if he is charged. Arrest is a technicality and, as written, implies far more than it is legitimate to imply at this stage. Leaky  Caldron  09:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Question Which provision of WP:BLP does this violate? WP:BLPCRIME states that, "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured."  Gerry Adams does not fall into that category.  I would be more inclined to oppose this on notability grounds.  GoldenRing (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't violate it. People just throw that about in an attempt to look smart.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That looks awfully like an accusation of bad faith. Would you like to withdraw it, or could you be more specific? AlexTiefling (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The BLP problem is that the blurb would convey a misleading impression to the majority of readers who aren't familiar with the details of English criminal procedure. Neljack (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Readers aren't stupid, and the UK legal system isn't as complicated as you are trying to make out, even for Americans. The police arrested him because they think he ordered this murder, and they have sufficient evidence to question him under caution - which is a decision that goes well beyond mere 'suspicion' (as a layman/tabloid news reader would understand that term). He had no choice about whether or not he was going to go the police station, and he certainly wasn't arrested because the bobbies were terribly concerned about protecting his rights, as a mere procedural concern. If anything, it shows his situation is worse than what sometimes happens when people are merely under 'suspicion', an actual voluntary interview. It means that, by law, everything he has said in the last 48 hours has been recorded, and will be used in a court of law if he ends up charged. Lokie Dokie (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Hugely notable arrest. I am utterly baffled at the suggestion Wikipedia would be somehow damaging Adam's reputation by detailing on the front page what is already in his biographical article, and indeed across the world media. He got arrested in connection with a murder - it says exactly what it does on the tin, and is 100% true as written. And can we just clear up a few myths here? Being arrested in the UK means exactly the same as it does in the US - it means the police want to question you about something without you being able to leave if you don't like their questions. Yes, you have rights once you are under arrest, but the idea that UK police would choose to arrest you just to make sure you have those rights, is just nonsense. And in the UK, the only reason anyone ever turns up 'voluntarily' to a police station and then gets arrested once inside, is because the police let their solicitor know beforehand that they were going to be arrested soon, and it's up to them whether they want to save them the hassle and turn up at the station under their own steam, or have the police come out to arrest them and then (because in high profile cases like this they would always tip off the press about such an arrest) be snapped being led away from their house in handcuffs. Which is obviously the sort of bad publicity a politician like Gerry Adams would have wanted to avoid, even if it's true that he's 100% innocent. As for the 'connection' business and this idea that somehow this means he's not suspected of murder, come on - this is just standard press release terminology. The 'connection' to the murder in this case is that the police believe he ordered the murder. Which in the eyes of the law, is no different to actually doing it. He would get a life sentence if convicted, either way. The only useful thing that WSJ article says in relation to this, is to point out that the UK doesn't go in for plea bargains - so the news that he has been arrested means this story now has just three possible outcomes - either he gets released without charge, or he gets charged, tried, and found not guilty, or he gets charged, convicted, and sentenced to life. None of those outcomes can be described as not notable, not given how long he has been accused of being the leader of the IRA and of ordering this murder, hence there isn't really any reason to wait until something else happens before deciding whether to put it on the front page. The arrest is the notable event that set the wheels in motion on this story, everything else from now on is just a consequence. Lokie Dokie (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And what's your source for the police's motivation in arresting him, exactly? AlexTiefling (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose you could say it's a combination of my bioligical make-up - two working eyes - and the fact I went to school and they taught me how to read. What's your excuse for pretending that he's been arrested for some other reason than ordering this murder? Do you have any basis for believing their motivation is something else, other than your own imagination? Lokie Dokie (talk)
 * This is an encyclopedia, not a saloon bar. We require sources, not speculation. You write an awful lot for someone who has misunderstood the law and is throwing accusations around. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And what the hell do you think I was reading with my eyes, if it wasn't not sources? And what have I misunderstood about the law, exactly? Come on, tell us all .... if you're not going to substantiate your own opinions with any facts to believe your pet theory about what motivated this arrest, you might as well do something useful here. Lokie Dokie (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "The 'connection' to the murder in this case is that the police believe he ordered the murder. Which in the eyes of the law, is no different to actually doing it." So, the entire core of your argument is "He looks like the murderer to me, so let's just throw it up on the front page." 98.180.53.48 (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Try reading it again. The core of my argument isn't hard to fathom, but you got it quite spectacularly wrong. If anything, you've outlined the reason why many people are opposing - they seem to believe that the rest of the world is reporting right now that Gerry Adams is a murderer, and only Wikipedia is doing the right thing by completely ignoring it, protecting his reputation, which has of course been completely unsullied by any high profile accusations whatsoever up until now. Lokie Dokie (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, point to a single reliable source that says that's why he's been arrested. We don't report speculation, especially of a serious matter like this. I hold no love for Mr Adams, but you're urging us on to post a headline which (in the first case) would be false, and in any case throws undue attention to what may be either a very early or a very minor stage of proceedings. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a damn good job Wikipedia doesn't report speculation, otherwise you'd probably be over at his biography adding all sorts of dubious nonsense to try and fool people into believing this arrest is for something other than the police suspect he ordered this murder. If you want to contradict that claim, which any intelligent perosn can put together with just a few seconds of research, then I'm afraid you're going to have to provide the source for that, because it's nonsense. Lokie Dokie (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And to get to the heart of the issue I have here with your view, it's not remotely speculation that Adams has been arrested 'in connection with' a murder. Anyone who even thinks about claiming it is, is obviously trying to mislead readers of Wikipedia. I have no doubt that right now Gerry Adams is wishing that being arrested in connection with a murder is a minor procedural matter in the UK, but I'm quite sure he and his solicitor know differently. As for this being undue attention, sure, right - that's why the arrest alone (with zero further developments to report) has been the headline news in Britain for two days now, and why it was the lead item on Newsnight. The clue's in the title. Lokie Dokie (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Simply said, there's a long-standing consensus of only posting convictions. This is to avoid sensationalisation. Without knowing any of the details here, the police can generally arrest anyone on mere suspicions, so giving arrests very high visibility is troubling for an encyclopedia. --hydrox (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you don't know any of the details, why are you even commenting? If Barack Obama was arrested 'in connection with' a murder tomorrow, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be considered sensationalism to put it on the front page of Wikipedia. It would be extremely troubling if an encyclopedia completely ignored such a high profile arrest - and there's no real difference here. Unless you think it's a good thing for Wikipedia's reputation for it to be seen to be pretending Gerry Adams is a low profile individual, or that this is somehow the first time his name has been associated in a highly visible way with criminality. Christ, you'd be hard pressed to find a single serious news source in the last 30 years that was mentioning Gerry Adams that didn't point out that he is suspected of being a high ranking member of, if not the leader, of the IRA. And on that score, if all you needed to arrest people in the UK was mere suspicion, Gerry Adams would have had a very hard life indeed for the few decades. Lokie Dokie (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, there is a difference between being arrested in connection with a murder the US and in the UK. Until he is charged with anything this is a "too early nomination. But I agree that if he is charged with murder this would definitely be something for ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I read this reply a few times, and I have no idea how you got to that conclusion from what I wrote. Lokie Dokie (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I wrote "without knowing any details" because I can't see anything here that would contradict the established procedure relating to criminal investigations and ITN. I don't think an MP is quite comparable to the acting head of state. There's no need to publicize the arrest, because we have the courts to make final decisions on all this, and we generally post each story only once to ITN. I am definitely sure that if he is convicted, it will be on the ITN. It's not about the notability of the person, but established procedure. --hydrox (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Established procedure suggests that someone of equivalent stature/importance has been arrested in connection with a murder before, and it was rejected. A claim I find hard to believe really. Lokie Dokie (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Blurb 1 is quite wrong. The alternative blurb seems correct but I think we should wait at least to see if he is charged with anything (I won't link to criminal charge because it doesn't apply here). BTW there is now Arrest of Gerry Adams which I suspect will get redirected or AFD'd before long. Thincat (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. This arrest (or rather, the fact he has now entered his second 24 hour period of detention), is the lead item on Newsnight tonight. That's not their ordinary news, that's their flagship current affairs programme. I'm watching it right now, and they seem pretty clear what this arrest was for. So, would someone here like to formulate an argument as to how Wikipedia is somehow more high-brow, more ethical, more reserved, more concerned about not maligning the reputations of innocent people, than Newsnight? Lokie Dokie (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note - Lokie Dokie has made no edits other than to this discussion. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So what? Does that make you feel better about ignoring my criticisms of your theories about why the police arrested Adams? Lokie Dokie (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one pushing a theory. I'm saying we shouldn't post your theory, for which you have been repeatedly asked to provide reliable sources, and you have not done so. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course you're pushing a theory - the theory that Adams has been arrested for something other than ordering this murder, and thus the implications of it are somehow less serious than the level and longevity of the news coverage it has got in the real world, in the serious media, would suggest. Therefore, your refusal to substantiate that belief at all, in any way, with any kind of source, is telling indeed. Anyone with a brain, even half a brain, can figure out what the source is for my 'theory' (that the 'connection' is that he ordered the murder), so I'm not going to waste my time by providing it here. Just like petulant toddlers shouldn't be rewarded for bad behaviour, specious requests for sources shouldn't be entertained on Wikipedia. Of course, I will offer you my profuse apologies if it turns out this arrest was for, say, simply not reportig to the police that he knew someone was going to commit this murder. I'm only saying that to put meat on just how ridiculous your view is. You might as well be saying this arrest might be for a parking ticket, for all the credence it carries. Lokie Dokie (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe this discussion should be closed, as this is not going to be posted right now and there is no further need to draw this discussion out; I'm involved so I can't do it. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No further need? Right. So we can all just pretend that the above discussion is an accurate reflection of the UK legal system, or of the profile/reputation of Adams in public life? Lokie Dokie (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Query For those who think that this should only be treated as news by Wikipedia if he is charged, would any of you like to explain the logic behind that? A large proportion of his biography is devoted to the fact he has for many decades been suspected of being a terrorist, a claim which has been repeated in a high profile manner by a wide variety of respectable, ethical and cautious sources, as well as in his biography at the 'anyone can add libel' Wikipedia, the number 1 Google result for his name. Therefore, it seems to me that it takes quite an imagination to believe that it wouldn't be news if he were to be released without charge, having been arrested for, for all intents and purposes, being a terrorist. The only explanation for that would be if you completely misunderstood what being arrested in the UK actually signifies (which is likely, given what's already been claimed as fact in here). If he were to be released without charge, you can guarantee it would completely change the way both he and the press portrayed him, going forward. Similarly, given it's pretty damn obvious that he will be saying absolutely nothing to the police except 'no comment' during questioning, if he is then subsequently charged, what will have actually happened between then and now? The evidence will be the same, the man's reputation will still be the same, his protestations of innocence would still continue, I would have thought, so really, to an outside observer, what would they think was the thing that changed your minds about the significance/newsworthiness between arrest and charge? I am trying really hard to find any kind of logic behind this opposition, and it's just not there. The only thing that holds any water is the claim of precedent, yet I would have thought that Gerry Adams was by far the most famous person arrested in Wikipedia's short life, at least for a serious crime like murder anyway, and certainly if restricting it further to just significant political leaders (obviosly I'm only talking about the jurisdictions where arresting political opponents on invented charges is not considered a legitimate part of the democratic process). Lokie Dokie (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Close I'll agree that this needs attention in so far as we have a more than two-to-one consensus opposing the nomination, and a sockpuppet now posting his wall of text on the issue. I'd do it myself, but I am sure someone else will agree this is no longer productive in any way. μηδείς (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that this looks like a sockpuppet; the relative fluency and immediate arrival at a comparatively obscure discussion page are deeply suspicious. Unfortunately, it looks like one can't start WP:SPI without two accounts to compare. Do you have any idea whose hand is in the sock? I am unfortunately clueless. Many thanks. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Gerry Adams was arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000 and technically could be held for up to 28 days. If questioning is to continue beyond 8pm today (48 hours after the arrest), however, the Police Service of Northern Ireland must seek authorisation from a judge, who must also decide how many additional days Addams can be held. --Bruzaholm (talk) 11:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 Ürümqi attack

 * Oppose per WP:WTAF – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's an essay? How about linking to the state, or the conflict? Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  18:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If the update in the article is sufficient, then that's fine. But we can't post an article that doesn't exist. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support in principle - There seem to be plenty of sources; we should at least be able to manage some new paragraphs in Xinjiang conflict. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose On the basis that there is no article.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Update – article has now been created (although it's still very stubby). I'll try to expand it the best I can. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * support once all sections of the article are completed. Number of injuries means event seems sufficiently notable to me. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * and : would you support when the Initial Response section is expanded? Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  16:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, now it's expanded. Compare with 2014 Kunming attack.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll decide if I want to support later, but now that there is an article, I can at least strike my oppose. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I did a little to update the article (obviously no where near as much as Bloom), and added myself to the updater, but please can someone tell me if I should remove myself? Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  17:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - although death toll is relatively low, it's a high-profile attack in a sensitive region that made headlines worldwide. and  should be commended for producing the well written article. -Zanhe (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted no complaints now article has been written. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Iraqi elections

 * I don't see just the elections taking place as worthy posting. I prefer waiting until results are announced and then add "for the first time since American troops have withdrawn" at the end of the blurb.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  16:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * General elections are ITNR, so this should be posted once the article is updated with the results. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support posting results once announced, per itnr. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support posting results. (am I just echoing Balaenoptera musculus today?) Rhodesisland (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Reading the BBC, they said it may be a case of months for the results. Close until then? Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  11:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] RD Bob Hoskins
Support. Seems to be a no brainer. He may be not be Anthony Hopkins or Al Pacino, he's certainly notable enough for RD. As for this being posted "too soon," minimum posting times have been proposed before and rejected each time.  Calidum   22:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I was about to add this, clicked edit and there it was! Totally support, the news has only just broken but has come from the agent of the actor himself. Miyagawa (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Internationally known. His article is translated into several dozen languages. —  Wylie pedia  13:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. This was also my reason for visiting this page. Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support This is what RD was made for, and a sad day indeed. Somchai Sun (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support but only for RD. He is a notable but not convinced that he is at the very top of the acting field either.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support RD. Exactly what the section is intended for. Modest Genius talk 13:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. -- Jayron  32  13:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "It's good to Support" (quoting from a line of one of his TV adverts), considering he was one of the best known British actors at the time and disagree with BabbaQ because he was then. Donnie Park (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose Really? I don't usually bang the "systemic bias" drum, but we're talking about an English actor who is not known as one of the leaders in his field. Meanwhile, people of greater importance from less covered nations can't get enough support. Just because you recognize the person who died doesn't mean they belong on RD. /minirant – Muboshgu (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Other stuff exists. Also I looked at his career and awards and he is clearly notable enough in his field for RD, in my mind. You have validity in your mini rant though :P Somchai Sun (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "winning the BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role and Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture Drama for his role in Mona Lisa" Abductive  (reasoning) 16:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't object to this being posted - it seems from the tributes I've read and the awards he received that there is at least a reasonable case that he meets the death criteria - but I do question whether it should be posted less than an hour and a half after it was nominated. In the case of a famous person dying you may get people flocking to post their supports upon hearing the news just after the death has been announced, while those who might oppose may not be coming here to comment upon hearing it (or might not have heard it, particularly if they are in a different country). I think this is a particular risk in relation to be people from popular culture, whose fame often outstrips their significance. Neljack (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahh, and a start class article is suddenly all right, after all the talk at RD: Hans Hollein below. Bravo! -- ELEKHHT 22:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The article may be rated start class, but it really shouldn't be. It may be GA quality.  Calidum   22:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'd support this nomination, but posting it 90 minutes after nomination is not a good look, as with another recently.  GoldenRing (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose given the number of much more worthy candidates he pushed off the ticker. Otherwise support, even if he wasn't worthy to tie Andy Griffith's shoestrings. μηδείς (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * He didn't push anyone off - RD was empty when Hoskins was added. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the magnitude of my oppose was directly proportional to the number he pushed overbourd, and still is. You are not going to trick me with your fancy maths. μηδείς (talk) 04:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Beware Poe's law. GoldenRing (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Al Feldstein

 * Support The article update is minimal but probably appropriate for this sort of RD nomination. A very influential figure in American culture of the 70s and 80s, with spillover to other English-speaking countries.  GoldenRing (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support The AV Club has said "[his] tenure as the editor of Mad Magazine transformed it from a goofy comic book curiosity into arguably the most influential satirical voice of the 20th century." Worth a mention. Smurrayinchester 10:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Mild Support Although the Bram Stoker award is not, say, an Emmy or Oscar, it is a big award for its genre and Feldstein's induction in the Comic Book Hall of Fame adds some weight too IMO. Rhodesisland (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Stale - unfortunately comments did not come in quick enough for a consensus to form until this was older than the oldest ITN blurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] LA Clippers owner banned for life

 * Oppose parochial racist gets caught. It happens.  Just because this particular racist is an NBA commissioner owner, doesn't make it better or worse or more or less newsworthy, just more disappointing.   The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You should try reading the article first next time.  Calidum   20:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, another priceless gem from your incredible purse of worldly advice. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I mean, your "Just because" kind of gave away that you didn't read the article - it's not the NBA commissioner. --162.95.216.223 (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, if it was the NBA commissioner it would have been a lot bigger... – H T  D  16:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. I think this is notable not so much for the reason Sterling was punished but the fact that he was; this doesn't happen every day.  This is getting significant international coverage, as well. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe only in the US then. People are frequently suspended/banned etc for racist remarks in Europe.  It's not news.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Are team owners frequently given lifetime bans, though? And are potentially forced to sell their team? I might not support if this was a player or fan, but owners seem different. 331dot (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For context, the PFA have made racist abuse a sackable offence, some footballers have already been sacked along with rugby players. Owners "seem" different?  Surely they're just human beings too?  Racist ones sometimes?  Perhaps it's more shocking that this is a shock. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're saying this shouldn't be a story, you might be right, but it is nevertheless, and in many places it is a top or near-top page story. 331dot (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's in the news, but as I said, it's a standard racist getting caught out. Big deal.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - certainly in the news here. While I see it as a huge overreaction to what I don't perceive as racism but rather a sad useless old man more concerned with his own public image than stamping it out, it's still a rare event in North America for a top league team owner to be forcefully removed and fined for remarks, let alone remarks recorded in a private conversation. -  Floydian  τ ¢  19:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't perceive telling someone not to bring black men to games as racist? What on earth do you think racism is? Neljack (talk) 05:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment—did we post about the Biogenesis baseball scandal? If not, we shouldn't post about this either. 184.146.110.224 (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't believe team owners were involved with that(and those were not lifetime bans from the sport). As I told TRM, I probably would not support if this was a player. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, according to the talk page of that article, we did on August 8 of last year. -  Floydian  τ ¢  20:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But the biogenesis ITN was relevant, it had an impact on the game, on the results etc, this is just an old man talking crap, blown up because he happens to be an NBA owner. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the Biogenesis scandal was posted, I oppose—apparently this isn't the first time he's done this. He was also investigated and sued in 2006 by the U.S. Dept. of Justice for much more than the current fine levied by the NBA. He was again sued in 2009 for employment discrimination. I see no difference between these previous lawsuits, investigations, etc. and the current instance. Just because the NBA finally realizes that he's racist and takes action does not make this story notable in any way whatsoever. 184.146.110.224 (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, we did post the Biogenesis Baseball Scandal. Andise1 (talk) 22:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. A lifetime ban for an owner is unusual for North American sports. The story is very much in the news right now.  Calidum   20:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Basketball isn't a major sport in the UK, but the story is well reported over here. Significant enough that we ought to feature it on ITN methinks. Mjroots (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose arbitrary action by private entity acting as a law unto itself that will be played out in the courts. Not like he shot his girlfriend through the bathroom door--which we still haven't posted. μηδείς (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Private entities can levy whatever sanctions or punishments upon their members or employees that they see fit, for any reason that is not illegal or against a contract; I don't see why that is a reason to prevent posting this. I haven't read about any pending court cases in this matter yet. 331dot (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sears can ban you from its auto repair shop, but it can't bill you $2.5M and force you to sell your car because you told your girlfriend not to cavort with the pit crew. This will go to court, when it does we can post the results. Until then it's a private entity with a tort claim against a living person. μηδείς (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The NBA has a Constitution which allows these sorts of actions, which the owner would have to agree to abide by. The fine is the maximum allowed per that document. Sears doesn't make you abide by its constitution to be a customer. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So, should I assume you don't actually understand the point I am making? Or that you simply disagree and there's some issue of psychological gratification or compulsion behind continuing this? μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You can assume whatever you wish. It is of little concern to me, just as any assumptions I would make about you are of little concern to you, I assume. I've moved on from this. 331dot (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I don't see this incident as that notable, especially when compared with the other recent racist banana incident.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  21:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Major scandal/resulting action at the highest level in the world's best league in a popular sport. Has relevance beyond its setting. Radagast (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. The story is unique based on the reaction, not just the racist statements themselves. President Obama commented,, major business sponsors pulled out, and league took the extreme response of publicly stating they will seek to force an owner to sell.—Bagumba (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. This is national news and is on the front page of BBC. It's hard to ignore its significance. 98.180.53.48 (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless wiki-content improved. This is a hard one. There is nothing that significant about this story really. People get banned from commercial establishments all the time. The president commented, okay, and a very sizeable fine was given by the league. I could weakly support this on those merits, but the wiki-content here is very slim (three paragraphs, and who is "V. Stiviano"?) --hydrox (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Local business matter. Let's not give any further publicity to this odious little racist. AlexTiefling (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Parochial racist gets caught. Oh, somebody already said that. It happens in my country too. Never hit ITN before though. Why is this one important? HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not just about the racism, but about the results of it; lifetime bans from a sport are a rarity. 331dot (talk) 08:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose It's certainly "in the news", but I don't know if this rises to the level of importance to be featured on ITN. Canuck 89 (have words with me) 02:15, April 30, 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose For me it is straddling the line between a business story and celebrity tittle-tattle. I might be tempted to support the former but clearly not the latter.  My position was decided when I read of the supposed "sanctions" that had been applied - he is forbidden from even making contact with any NBA player.  Does anyone think that that would be legally enforceable? Or even constitutional?  It's not unusual for people to claim authority for actions that they do not possess, but without a rational analysis of what these claimed sanctions mean in reality it has to be an oppose. 3142 (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't it be legally enforceable? The NBA can decide who is at its facilities and games and who can communicate with its employees/members. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your employer does not have the right to direct "You will not meet X. They certainly don't have the right to determine whom a third party may or may not contact.  Attempting to do so would probably fall under freedom of association making this action utterly meaningless. 3142 (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Freedom of association only means that the government cannot make such a restriction; private entities like the NBA can tell its owners who they can and cannot associate with, or ban them from their property. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Several opposes are saying that this happens all the time without giving any examples.  This is the owner of an NBA team banned for life for attending NBA games including those of the team he owns, for racist behaviour.  I'd like to see someone post an apples-to-apples analogous event.  It's not just some random fan banned for life for hooliganism.  And it's a lifetime ban, not just a ban for 5 or ten matches or whatever.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I have to side with Rambling Man. A significant story, but very much a local interest event. It may well be big in America, and I appreciate the coverage may be more intense over there, it's just the coverage elsewhere barely goes beyond a headline. Parochial it very much is. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For a "local interest event", this is getting a lot of worldwide coverage. The NBA has players from around the world, not just the US. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Idiot said something stupid. Not frontpage material.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 06:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Except it is on front pages.....and it's not just about what he did but the results of it. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Remember that anon who was saying the UEFA Champions League quarterfinals has to get in because it's the biggest sporting event of the moment? Yes, it was the biggest sporting event of the moment, but even BBC Sport's World Sport made this their banner story instead of Real Madrid's thrashing of Bayern. Perhaps if Bayern put up a fight it wouldn't be the case, but in almost cases of a Champions League game day, it's usually the lead story in that program. Not so this time. And that's BBC, in a country where basketball isn't popular. – H T  D  09:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A day after Sterling banishment, this is still a fixture in BBC's sport program. This is remarkable. The BBC almost never covers basketball, and has an endless stream of football, rugby and cricket, the second followed in about 15 countries, the latter followed in about ten countries, but virtually ignored elsewhere. This pretty much shows that "the lack of interest" argument is complete and utter bullshit. – H T  D  23:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am puzzled by the opposition to this.  Like Johnsemlak I would like to see some examples of this "happening all the time" as is claimed.  This is also getting lots of news coverage around the world, including in the big basketball nation of India (see above).  Pardon the sarcasm, but this clearly is not a "local" story. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Eh, when was the last time an owner of a sports team was ever banned, and is now at the point where the league is forcing him to sell due to non-sporting reasons. Has that ever happened? – H T  D  08:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you know? Does it matter? Being the first time for something doesn't necessarily make it significant. HiLo48 (talk) 08:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's why I'm asking. A sports owner being forced to sell on reasons other than sports is unusual. As for being the first, at least on this circumstance, of course it does! First African American baseball player, first man on the moon, heck even the British man to win Wimbledon since Fred Perry was important. This isn't "the first person to say racist remarks", this was the "first sports owner to be stripped of his ownership because of saying racist remarks". Forcefully stripping an owner of his team is something that has to be rare, even for other reasons. – H T  D  09:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In the sort of equivalent league I know most about, the Australian Football League, most clubs aren't privately owned. But particularly after Nicky Winmar made a point in 1993 of showing racist members of the crowd his dark skin, the league cracked down on almost anything racist by almost anyone associated with the game, even including spectators. It's been a very successful program. Perhaps the significance of this is that American basketball might be finally catching up with the rest of the world. HiLo48 (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Like I said, cracking down on spectators and even players should be easy. Cracking down on owners, not so much. At least American sporting events don't have regular occurrences of fans throwing bananas at the playing field, or have Athletic Bilbao's "policy" of only using players from their place. – H T  D  12:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Don't see this as a notable development. And, 331, you've said your bit.  There is a limit to how often you need to repeat it. GoldenRing (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the unsolicited advice; however, like everyone else here, I will make whatever comments I deem appropriate to make. Feel free to ignore them. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - A national story.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:IDONTLIKEIT? – H T  D  12:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No it is a matter of national and international relevance.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you realize what that argument is? – H T  D  13:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You know fully well that "a national story" is not a valid oppose rationale.--WaltCip (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Get over it.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You may want to tell Rob Ford Toronto is now part of the U.S.   Calidum   16:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Too bad the Grizzlies left Vancouver. Just wait until the Euros get their own franchises... if players can put up daily transatlantic flights. – H T  D  16:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:DONTFEED... the person who made the remarks, not the nominator. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's a bit disappointing how most of the oppose rationales basically boil down to WP:IDHT. For instance, the claims of "local interest" are clearly contradicted by the numerous international news sites included in the nomination header. It's one thing to oppose this on the grounds that it's receiving disproportionate coverage for what it is, but at least make the opposes valid.--WaltCip (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Basketball is not that popular in the UK where I happen to dwell (though I am a Lakers fan - sorry if that offends anyone), however it has been all over the news here, mostly from people debating the racist comments this guy made - but racists get exposed for what they are all the time. That isn't notable. What's notable is that this guy has been banned for life from the NBA, been given the maximum fine possible and will more than likely be forced to sell his shares in the Clippers. That is news whether you like it or not...--Somchai Sun (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Even those who are fans of the sport would struggle to name the owners of NBA teams. The reason for his removal is unusual, but it's still just a change in back-room staff for a sporting team. That's just not significant enough in my book. Modest Genius talk 13:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning on the fence on this, but it is definitely more than just a "change in back-room staff". The ironic thing is that I suspect that a weaker action from the NBA would have been ITN worthy for the fallout that would have occurred. The NBA was on the verge of open revolt because of Sterling.  Anything less than a lifetime ban was going to be trouble.  Overall though, this is one of those stories that makes me wish ITN had separate tabs for things like sports, politics and general news.  It is one of those mid-tier stories that could be posted in a secondary tab. Resolute 14:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Agree with BabbaQ above, it's just a national story. Granted, Wikipedia is mostly read by US users, but there may be more newsworthy material than this waiting to be posted. Küñall (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Internet Explorer security flaw

 * Slightly cynical comment Having ceased support for Windows XP a month ago, if Microsoft wanted to even more persuade customers to upgrade to a new OS now, a massive security flaw in XP that wasn't going to be fixed would be a great strategy, wouldn't it? Also, I'd like to see a technical source from with the IT world, as well as those more business and public oriented ones. Something that told us more about the real nature and seriousness of the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a flaw in IE, not XP. Stephen 23:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. IE is part of XP. My point still applies. HiLo48 (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No. IE is a bundled program that runs on XP.  Your point is irrelevant.  Stephen 00:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. My point is completely relevant. You have simply proved that you don't understand it. I'm sure others will HiLo48 (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You are completely ignorant of IT. That much has been proven. 98.180.53.48 (talk) 01:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Then you would be stunned at how I make a living. Do you actually have a comment on the nomination? HiLo48 (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * However much it pains me to say so, HiLo is correct that IE is a feature of WIN8, not a separate program. Just go ahead and try to delete it using uninstall from your control panel. You can deactivate it following a purposefully arcane process that has nothing to do with any actu deinstallation.  It will still be there.  They tell you you can then "reinstall" it.  It doesn't reinstall fresh, it simply reactivates the deactivated files already on your hard drive. μηδείς (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * HiLo was talking about XP, not Windows8. That he can't tell the difference between an operating system and a bundled program that runs on the OS is probably something to do with our systematic bias. Stephen 10:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, hard words, but thanks for a good laugh anyway. Note that, while I don't think IE was ever essential to XP kernel-land, it is not possible to entirely uninstall IE from XP  because Microsoft (deliberately to make it hard to remove?) tied it into some fairly basic user-land desktop components. GoldenRing (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. IIRC MS argued in court that the inclusion of a free web browser in Windows wasn't anti-competitive (against Netscape) because the browser was an integral part of the operating system. A cynic would say that they wove IE and its libraries as closely as possible into the operating system in order to make this argument. See United States v. Microsoft Corp., European_Union_Microsoft_competition_case, Removal of Internet Explorer, etc. Ah, good times. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * There's a flaw in your logic - your suggestion would be more plausible if the flaw only hit IE versions 6 - 8, i.e. the ones that XP supports. Then if you were very cynical you could assume Microsoft might be trying to get them to upgrade. However, since in this case it is apparently present in all versions of IE right up to the latest then upgrading to Win7 or 8 wouldn't make any difference, if anything it might turn people off upgrading by showing the same vulnerabilities exist in all the versions of Windows. I think that was what Stephan was trying to get across. 92.30.133.120 (talk) 11:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Good point. Whether or not one considers the web browser to be an integral part of the operating system (and Microsoft controversially argued in court back in 1998 that it was), both IE and MS Windows are published by Microsoft, which obviously controls them both. If this is a marketing strategy though, it seems like a footbullet one to me. So Weak Support. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not a good point. You must have missed the point that I have already pointed out that Microsoft will fix the Win 7 and Win 8 versions, for free. They won't fix XP any more.


 * Support - highly notable bug affecting millions of people. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Such bugs are patched and released almost every month by Microsoft on patch Tuesday. So why only this get special recognition? -Abhishikt (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Because a huge proportion of people till use XP, and this is the first time that bugs associated with XP won't be fixed for free by Microsoft. HiLo48 (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment on process If editors could avoid being rude about other editors as part of their comments, that would be a good thing IMO. I'm not just referring to this nomination. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment There's a security bug in IE?! Well I never.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 11:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Isn't saying that IE constitutes 55% of all browsers a bit controversial? Various statistics place it in the range 20-58%.129.178.88.85 (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Opinions vary depending on methodology etc. If we post this we should avoid using a specific 'market share' number in the blurb. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment per Nutlugs, the fact there's a security flaw in IE is never news, it's been a daily routine update service patch nonsense since the dawn of IE. What is the story here?  Is it that those users still using XP will be royally shafted or is it something else?  I'm not getting it yet....  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To me, shafting XP users is the whole point of this exercise. HiLo48 (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Microsoft releases critical fixes for all the IE versions almost every patch Tuesday. These do not get mentioned every time, then why this time? It seems the reason for more news coverage is that Microsoft is Not going to publicly release the fix for WinXP. This would be the case going forward. So I think this event is quite regularly occurring, but just because it got wider coverage, we shouldn't include it in ITN. -Abhishikt (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose We don't refer to "patch Tuesday" for nothing, this is a monthly occurrence. The only difference now is that it occurs after the end of XP support but that is old news and not the underlying item. 3142 (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I had a woman in her 80's call me about this in a panic today since she'd read it on her front page. I think wikipedia is a good place for people to come expecting objective coverage of this and the wider context, it's perfect for our mission at ITN and at WP. μηδείς (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose – another Microsoft IE bug? really??? --  Ohc  ¡digame! 03:42, 30 April 2014
 * Support - story of international interest.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you actually know when the last flaw in IE was announced? Was that of international interest? HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong support if the blurb is changed to "Microsoft announces that people still use Internet Explorer." – H T  D  22:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support I'm commenting here from Internet Explorer. I hope this edit gets to be saved before New Year's Eve. Küñall (talk) 04:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Update Microsoft have done an about turn on this and announced it will be patched for XP after all. This bug is not otherwise exceptional in any regard so therefore it seems to me any notability it may have had is utterly destroyed. 3142 (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that removes the smidgen of newsworthiness this had. HiLo48 (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Bernie Ecclestone £1.2bn tax avoidance

 * Isn't tax avoidance considered par for the course for larger corporations? We certainly wouldn't post any examples of U.S. corporations doing this. --WaltCip (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tax avoidance is indeed par for the course for multinational corporations - they avoid far more tax than this. Neljack (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Companies and the rich avoiding taxes is not an unusual occurrence. 331dot (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with avoiding taxes. That's what accountants are for.  Does this mean evasion?  If so, can we use proper English? μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, this isn't "evasion" since it appears to be legal. Neljack (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Right - this is legal tax-avoidance. Important that we don't accuse him of tax evasion. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Per Neljack.Rhodesisland (talk) 09:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Man obeys the law" doesn't sound like a great blurb for ITN. -- Jayron  32  11:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If we're allowed to spin, then I'd go with "Rich man shirks massive tax bill, evades social and moral obligations" or maybe "One law for rich, another for poor". Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment Though legal, tax avoidance is widely considered to be immoral (I can provide WP:RS for that if needed, or see Tax_avoidance). Stories don't need to be illegal in order to be notable here. This is a particularly egregious example of tax avoidance - some sources are reporting this as a record amount for UK personal tax avoidance. Large corporations avoiding tax - and the campaigns against them - definitely do make the news round here, although obviously YMMV depending on the editorial priorities of the news media that you read. IMO this is notable for F1 fans because money from F1 is being channelled into this shady offshore trust. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's all perspective. If what he did is perfectly legal, what we have is "man doesn't voluntarily give a billion dollars to the government which he wasn't required to give them in the first place".  That we want him to have given that money over is beside the point.  If it is legal to avoid it, that's the exact same thing as saying he isn't required to pay it, which isn't news.  People not doing things they aren't required to do isn't news.  Now, if there was a law broken, or a fine levied, or a trial forthcoming, we may have something.  But being pissed because he's not voluntarily paying money that it's not illegal not to pay is not a news story.  -- Jayron  32  12:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's one side of the argument. RS say there is another. I think it would be too digressive for me to make the argument here, but there are plenty of WP:RS for tax avoidance being widely held to be immoral - it's not a WP:fringe view. Not everything that is legal is right or un-newsworthy (e.g. see lots of our other news stories about legal things).
 * The other angle on this story is that HMRC was wrong to settle for only £10m on a potential tax bill of £1.2bn. HMRC are pretty much admitting it was a mistake and saying they've changed their process. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Many rich people and/or companies avoid taxes. Why should we list this one and not others(such as Apple, Google, Gerard Depardieu, etc.)? 331dot (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact we declined to post Depardieu. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @331dot, if particularly notable examples come up in the future, I think we should list them. Consensus can change. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose alt blurb could read "Man gets rich paying as little tax as possible". Nothing to see here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Karachi school explosion

 * Support - Definitely not something you hear about often in the context of school and children. -  Floydian  τ ¢  17:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I oppose shootings that kill a few schoolkids in the US and, equally, I will oppose a grenade blast that kills a few schoolkids in Pakistan. I can't see why the fact that children rather than adults were killed should automatically confer greater significance on it. Neljack (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Neljack said what I came here to say. 331dot (talk) 02:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - No article of its own, not a significant enough incident to be mentioned in the linked articles, let alone have a lengthy update. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per Crisco. Rhodesisland (talk) 09:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support typical American gun violence, just not in the US and not with a gun, so it doesn't count. μηδείς (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Obvious oppose no article and this certainly doesn't qualify as significant enough to impact either the Karachi or the hand grenade article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Suggest closing. No consensus to post and story is growing stale. Rhodesisland (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] April 27–28, 2014 tornado outbreak

 * Support Notable due to death toll and scale of damage. Article looks good. We may want to use Faulkner County, Arkansas in the blurb as that's the exact location of most of the deaths (I think). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support And agree that Faulkner County, Arkansas should be included in the blurb. --Samuel Peoples (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - A lot of destruction, certainly in the news up here, death toll isn't all that substantial, but the number of towns levelled seems to be. However, wait until tonight (EST) at least to post or you'll get those stark raving mad Europeans in here (even though sleep is for the weak). -  Floydian  τ ¢  17:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment' - article is very light on prose and has multiple completely empty sections. It is certainly not fit for posting at this time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, an (unfortunately) far too common event. As I have stated over the years, with at least some agreement from others here, ITN should not be posting every tornado breakout. There will be much worse ones in the coming months. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support the score or so of people killed here were far less important than the score or so of people killed by Cyclone Ita. Given it only happened in the US, and in Red States especially, lets wait till one of the tornadoes makes it from Alabama to Toronto, then we can reconsider. μηδείς (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't that an argument for an oppose?? GoldenRing (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's possible that μηδείς was deploying WP:sarcasm. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm is a biting attack sometimes employing irony. This was just plain irony. μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the second time in a day or so I've had to invoke Poe's law to understand your !votes, μηδείς. GoldenRing (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Death toll of 18 should make this postable, IMO, wherever it happened. We don't want to overcorrect our systemic bias.  GoldenRing (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait. This will probably be a growing story in the next few days with unfortunately many more deaths. Perhaps posting something like a, a series of tornadoes kills xx during a major storm outbreak. (well, not that, but something like that....) Rhodesisland (talk) 10:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support major disasters with high death tolls are ITN-worthy no matter where they occur. -Zanhe (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Willing to post, however, the article is seriously lacking some prose. At the moment, there's just a big table and many expand tags. --Tone 13:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed - the article needs a lot more prose. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: death toll now at 28. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This could use a little more prose, at least two nice paragraphs would be good. People will indeed be coming here for comprehensive, non-sensationalist cover.  I'll be busy outside the holodeck today, so forgive me if I can't devote too much time.  But this should go up ASAP once we've got the prose. μηδείς (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose (a) article is woeful with maintenance tags and entirely out of date (b) if we keep wanting to post regular US weather, we could use an ITNR for such common events with at least one tornado outbreak causing multiple fatalities in the US every year for the past few years. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (a) I concede that the article could use some work and (b) are you serious? You know what else happens yearly but always makes its way onto ITN? The results of sports championships for MULTIPLE different sports and leagues, etc, yet storms that have now caused 34 deaths aren't notable? Give me a break. --Samuel Peoples (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should re-read it. I suggested that commonplace annual weather events should be placed onto ITN/R.  I don't recall stating it wasn't notable, just that it happened frequently.  Accordingly, I'll give you that break you've requested. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Marked Ready The summary and mayflower sections (now in complete sentence form, more that surpass the three paragraph requirement for a new article. Altblrb mentions currently reported  34 Dead.  There are arbitrary expansion needed markers, they can be removed by the posting admin if necessary. μηδείς (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The article now has well more than the required prose content, no visible tags, over 30K in content, and reflects 35 deaths from 7 twisters as well as two drownings and destruction in almost every state from Nebraska to Louisiana to Florida with the North East to be hit today. Consensus is 7 to 2 in favor of postings. μηδείς (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. Now that the storm has played it's way through more of the area, IMO the time is ripe to post. Rhodesisland (talk) 07:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Every year several of these events seem to be nominated. No evidence this is of any more significance than any of the others. Tornadoes are obviously common in those parts. Maybe too many have been nominated. HiLo48 (talk) 07:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - A particularly devastating and noteworthy outbreak. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what some people seem to say about these things several times every year. Either you're wrong, or a lot of people have been writing an awful lot of crap here every tornado season. HiLo48 (talk) 08:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And....? We post sporting events every single year and those don't change at all. It's a notable event regardless of how often it may happen. Dozens of lives have been lost and tens of millions of people have been affected. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Not ready - article is still light on prose... Perhaps it meets the bare minimum, but considering half the text is unreferenced (and orange tagged as such), it is definitely not ready for posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note - Ongoing "historic" floods in and around Pensacola, Florida as a result of the storm system. Needs expansion to cover the flood-event but the system is becoming more and more damaging as it continues eastward. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)*
 * Support major and unusual weather event that caused massive devastation in the south. Secret account 14:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ready The article has not a single citation needed tag. Every listed tornado is referenced in the leftmost column, as was the section that section that was temporarily marked as unreferenced, since it had been removed from the chart without the references being repeated as well.  Not is there any rule that senetences and commentary within charts do not count ast text, but even ignoring that question, as of this edit  all ITN requirements are exceeded.  This is ready for immediate posting. μηδείς (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted - article in much better shape now, thanks for the efforts. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Question My points above were ignored. We do seem to get several nominations every year for American tornadoes. This seems to have been posted on the numbers, which is pure systemic bias. Non-Americans have no way of telling if this really was more important than any other tornado nomination. I doubt if many Americans can tell. Can we please do this better? HiLo48 (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't speak on behalf of what Americans know about Tornado outbreaks. You sound like someone who's never left Los Angeles.  We east of the rockies invented the word from the roots much "ado" about things being "torn" up.  If you need help understanding the impact, read the article, and look on a map where Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Maine, Florida and Louisiana are, and consider these states and the areas they bound are all suffering flooding related fatalities and damage, if not lethal tornadoes.  The impact here is much wider than that of Hurricane Sandy.  And storms like this occur every two or three years on average, although some single tornados are much worse depending on the map and bad luck. μηδείς (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposing this posting. I have no idea on it and am I'm expressing my confusion. I am concerned that we seem to see an awful lot of nominations here for tornadoes. Some of them must have been rubbish. I seem to recall posts like "A particularly devastating and noteworthy outbreak" several times last year. Were they bullshit? How do we pick the really worthy nominations in future? HiLo48 (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, HiLo, then just do be assured this is a major less-than-once-a-year system, with much wider spread impact than Sandy, just not the storm surge of that storm which devastated coastal towns. There's no set way to measure these things.  sometimes you have an outbreak in only two states that kills 80 people.  Or just one tornado that kills 40.  Sometimes there are 6 dead in a system that hits 8 states.  Sometimes hurricanes spawn 100's of tornados.  This doesn't compare to the April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak with 324 dead which, I believe, was the worst since the 70's, but it certainly compares to Cyclone Ita, Hurricane Sandy, and  most notable spring outbreaks. μηδείς (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not believe we have ever rejected a natural disaster that killed 35 people in any country. The US has a fairly large number of such tornadoes (perhaps 2/year on average), but I hardly think 2 stories a year on tornadoes is a huge number.  Much of Asia has flooding that kills dozens of people multiple times a year and those stories have always been posted when nominated too (3 or 4 last year alone)... Basically, there is an unspoken rule that >~20 deaths=automatically notable enough (unless it is a traffic accident). --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Article is a little muddled. Lead says "at least 35[1] fatalities.", infobox says "45 (+1 non-tornadic)" deaths and tables add up to 33.  A little awkward and clumsy, needs some alignment.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Egyptian death sentences

 * Comment. I think a similar event to this was proposed recently, and the consensus at that time seemed to be that this is only notable if the sentences are carried out. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A similar event (Bangladesh Rifles revolt) was also proposed here last year, and consensus was to add it. The last Egyptian sentences were 530+ and there were no high profile figures involved, unlike this one. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Very high level of notability, international implications. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per Fitzcarmalan, Balaenoptera musculus. If sentences are carried out, violent domestic reaction would seem a possibility. Sca (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Badie's article is orange-tagged and a more general target would be preferrable anyway (the other 680 people matter too). Unfortunately, the unrest article is also orange-tagged. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Badie is the Supreme Guide (top leader) of the Muslim Brotherhood and he is the one behind Mohamed Morsi and all the others. I believe you have a good point ThaddeusB that the others matter as well. So perhaps it is time we created 2014 Egyptian mass trials or maybe Trials and judicial hearings during the Islamist unrest in Egypt for this and for last March's sentences among others. However, we still have to deal with the orange tags. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, a stand-alone article is a viable solution. We have many articles on individual trials - no reason we can't have one on a "mass trial". --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * oppose as a largely one-off kangaroo court. Don't want to sound oxymoronic, but they've done this fairly frequenctly in the last 1 year and Egypt IS NOT standing out in the news. (as for kangaroo court, I have no idea whats it is upto but can doubt its independence from the executie )
 * Let me partially rephrase tht. Basie is high-profile, but lets wait to see if its carried out. In the latter case, id hugely support it.Lihaas (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support: highly notable. To say that it was a "kangaroo court" is to say that it didn't follow due process; but its not having followed due process doesn't preclude its actions from being significant.  It Is Me Here  t /  c  20:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur with this reasoning. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and It Is Me Here. Neljack (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment — Presumably, it's unlikely all the sentences will be carried out, but the handing down of the sentences in this dubious, to say the least, procedure is, in Middle Eastern context, significant enough for posting, IMO. Sca (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose lots of bluster. Last month we had "529 death sentences", 492 of which were commuted by the same court.  Seems they like big headlines but don't follow through on them.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * '''Support if and when 12 of them are carried out. μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] India Ballistic Missile test
Question From reading our article, it doesn't look like this is their first successful test of the system. What aspect of this event is particularly novel? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The link highlighted it as "joining a club of stateS"...seems to have crossed a certain thresholdLihaas (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose "...could possibly lead to an arms race..." call me back when they do get into an arms race.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose an interesting story but all I'm seeing is an unreferenced "The first PDV was successfully test fired on 27 April 2014." claim in the "update". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. per all above. Rhodesisland (talk) 07:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Macedonian general election, 2014

 * Support - When the results from Macedonia comes in.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support once results are in. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - elections are ITN/R, so its rather pointless to "debate" the item before the results occur. The only factor to whether it is posted or not is the quality of the update, which obviously cant' be judged at this time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Macedonian media have announced victory for Ivanov in the presidential and bare majority for VMRO-DPMNE in the parliamentary election. The official results, however, will be announced tomorrow.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ready The article is updated with the official results from the State Electoral Commission. Marking ready.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Posting. Someone update the photo, please. --Tone 08:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Papal canonization

 * Support Two well-known and influential former popes; getting lots of news coverage; interesting symbolism with the "liberal" John XXIII and the "conservative" John Paul II canonised together. Neljack (talk) 09:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I generally support each canonisation, especially when it deals with notable and influential people from relatively recent times.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support The main article linked above should be the primary focus. Compare that to the pseduo-stub of Kryptodrakon, for example.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support surprised this hasn't been posted yet.Nergaal (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Posting. The articles are updated. There's a separate article about canonization as well but since it's very short at the moment, I prefer not to include it in the blurb. This can be changed later. --Tone 10:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment on process Only an hour and a half to discuss - isn't that a bit too speedy? What about people in other time zones? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree, and post-posting weak oppose. I suppose I don't really care, but I have to wonder if we'd post similar declarations by other large religions, after just 1.5 hours of no oppose !votes. ToBk (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, this may be justified, but the process is not a good look. It really hasn't been discussed at all. HiLo48 (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - this has been in the news all week. A nice, super rare chance to post religious news. I was planning to nominate it, if necessary.  Good work. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per above, and we do often post noms that get 4 quick supports and no opposes (that means 5-0 support including the nominator). μηδείς (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ...and they are often very controversial afterwards. I agree with others that this process is not a good look.  GoldenRing (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If they're controversial they can be pulled. There was obviously no way the highest award given by the world's largest institution to two of its prior leaders was not going to be posted. μηδείς (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think that's an acceptable process. We are supposed to operate by consensus.  "No consensus to post" is very different to "consensus to pull."  GoldenRing (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] South Korea PM resigns

 * Support as a very significant effect of the sinking. 331dot (talk) 02:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Leaning oppose. It appears that in South Korea the president is both head of state and head of government. Seeing that, and consider the article on the ship itself is already linked as part of the new 'ongoing field,' I'm leaning towards opposing this. Also, the article on Jung Hong-won is entirely insufficient for posting on the main page.   Calidum   02:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support when updated - major development in the MV Sewol story. Naturally, the "ongoing" item will disappear if this succeeds.  I suggested an altblurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - significant.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support A Prime Minister resigning over a disaster like this is pretty major. Neljack (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Change to oppose for now; I have now read that the PM has only offered to resign, it has not been accepted yet so we should wait until it is(if it is). 331dot (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support if/when he goes. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Update Resignation accepted "Park’s office said the president will accept Chung’s resignation offer, but he will leave his post only after the ferry disaster has been brought under control". (Wash Post) so unconditional support for posting now, from me. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - the article should say why he resigned (public pressure, etc.), not just that he did. The update is currently inadequate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * List of Prime Ministers of South Korea shows there's some significant turnover on this position; Park's 2 immediate predecessors bad an average of 4 PMs each, although this would be Park's first replacement since she took office more than a year ago. – H T  D  04:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. seems to me this needs to get posted as part of the overall story. The PM has resigned, it has been accepted, and turn over of the office isn't really applicable because of the reason for this particular resignation. Rhodesisland (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Tsvangirai suspended from own party

 * Weak oppose. Unless it is a party actually in power, I don't think we typically post changes in leadership of political parties, especially if effects in the relevant nation are minimal.(Mugabe is still running the country and will continue to do so)  I think that's the case here.  I'm willing to reconsider given more information, but I don't support this right now. 331dot (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - per the fact that Tsvangirai has been a very covered political figure in his country.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support – he is probably the best-known Zimbabwean opposition figure, so IMO it's significant.  It Is Me Here  t /  c  12:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support because he's one of the few possible rivals to Mugabe, who is in effect a dictator. IMO it's more notable than a change of leadership for an opposition party in most countries because the political situation in Zimbabwe is different to that of more democratic countries. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * oppose internal factionalisation and bickering within a party is hardly notable news. Nevermind that the MDC is now delegitimised as an "official opposition".Lihaas (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment The alt-blurb is OK. The blurb isn't. It MUST mention the country. HiLo48 (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality - article needs work (short lead, orange tagged section, infobox still says Tsvangirai leads the party). Tsvangirai's article could be an alternate target, but it is not updated and has serious issues, so probably not. Since we do not normally post political infighting, I would at least expect a high-quality article if we are going to make an exception.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Atari games burial found

 * I don't know how I feel about this. It's definitely interesting, but I'm not sure the news is important enough for ITN. DYK wouldn't appear to be an option here, I don't think. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose because finding this type of trash doesn't seem that important, even though it's kind of cool. Like, ahem, Bongwarrior said, it might be a great topic for "Did you know...?" if it were expanded quite a bit. Mvblair (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's not really helpful to suggest something would make a good DYK when the article is already large and not new. The only way such an article could hit DYK is by becoming a Good Article.  DYK is about recognizing content work, not merely interesting facts. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact, it is already a good article, so even that route isn't available. Neljack (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My bad. I thought that if articles were expanded enough, they could become DYK. Mvblair (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That requires a 5x expansion, which I very much doubt can be pulled from this event. --M ASEM (t) 02:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support this will be of great interest to people born before Jimmy Carter was president. μηδείς (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. This is interesting, different and a big story in the history of video gaming. It is in the news and the article is in good shape, we aren't taking away a DYK, and there is no more important story this would be denying space to. To my mind it is therefore exactly the sort of thing that we should be posting on ITN. Thryduulf (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would love to support this as I'm one of the editors for it and it does reflect a major event in the video game industry, but I would want to see more international coverage of the event to justify it better for ITN. (It is a shame this is unable to go DYK, that's where I would have pushed it.) --M ASEM (t) 00:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Found some UK stories. 331dot (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is a classic example of the interests of a typical Wikipedian, rather than the general public. Archaeologists find all sorts of fascinating things in past peoples' garbage all the time. We ignore almost all of it. To post this trivia would put our systemic biases fully on display. HiLo48 (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that women, non-technical people, non-college graduates, young and old video game players, non-Christians, (you get the point) wouldn't be interested in this? How do you know that? (English speaking is kinda required). 331dot (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)  Further, systemic bias is an argument to post stories relevant to those groups, not to prohibit ones that the "average wikipedian" might be interested in.  They are here, too. 331dot (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the point is that, not surprisingly, an internet project like this attracts a disproportionate number of people who are interested in tech stuff. Neljack (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And that means we shouldn't have the occasional story that might interest them? It's not like we post video game stories every day, or even once a month. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is making some news in Australia, too. 331dot (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. We have a decent article on this, a news story to highlight it, and a subject that many readers are interested in.  Seems like a good candidate for posting. 331dot (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Sure, it's not the most important story going right now. But it's getting pretty good coverage as 331dot's links show. We have a pretty good article on the subject. And it would be nice to post something that doesn't involve mass deaths or kidnappings.   Calidum   03:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, weird but not important. Perhaps is suitable for DYK but certainly not for ITN. Nsk92 (talk) 04:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Considerably wide interest from an industry which we rarely post (even then only the greatest successes). That a company considered it more profitable to bury games and systems rather than sell them... well, I'm sure those who are versed in business theory could find something to analyze. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose A niche slice of geekery but more curiosity than front page news, for me doktorb wordsdeeds 05:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - As a counter to systemic bias claims: according to the archives ITN very rarely posts stories about about video games, the only ones I can find were Call of Duty: Black Ops in 2010 and Grand Theft Auto V in 2013, both for breaking sales records. Of course video games appear more often in other sections of the Main Page, but how often is there going to be news from this sector to post, especially news that isn't just one game making more money than a previous game...? 92.30.173.5 (talk) 08:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per doktorbuk and Nsk92 Rhodesisland (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose As far as archaeological discoveries go, this would not appear to be a particularly important one. I don't think it gives us any great new insight into the past. In fact, I suspect it will have very little impact. So I can't see how the significance criterion is met. HiLo48 is also on the money with his comment about the average Wikipedian v. the average person, something that particularly needs to be borne in mind when evaluating tech stories. Neljack (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To be fair, this is a reminder of a significant financial event, North American video game crash of 1983, which would further influence the international video game market through today. --M ASEM (t) 15:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per many above: niche story not suitable for ITN.  It Is Me Here  t /  c   — Preceding undated comment added 12:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose — Per all of the opposes above. Too obscure. Sca (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sca Video games are played around the world by millions, hardly an "obscure" subject. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 331dot, how does the widespread playing of video games affect life on Planet Earth? Sca (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement that "life on Planet Earth" be affected to be posted to ITN, only that something be in the news which can highlight an article that readers might be interested in. My point was that video games are not an "obscure" subject. 331dot (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose too niche per HiLo48, Neljack, It Is Me Here  and others above. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Atari led the home videogame revolution, and its demise in 1983 was huge news that would certainly have made ITN when it happened. This is like "finding the body".  Opposes because it is trash are like saying we shouldn't post 9/11 because the towers were then just ruins, or if Jimmy Hoffa's body were found it was just a run of the mill skeleton.  The story here is the illumination of a very notable 31 year-old mystery. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There's very little reason to link this with 9/11, Medeis. doktorb wordsdeeds 02:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Assuming you've graduated at least secondary school, you might ask for a refund of your tuition on the basis of not having been taught the difference between an analogy and an equation, Doktorb. μηδείς (talk) 04:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should consult a dictionary to discover the difference in meaning between "link" and "equate", μηδείς. And does the government really charge schoolkids tuition fees in America? Surely even the US isn't that crazily right-wing? Neljack (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Notwithstanding that the U.S. has private colleges, governments in other countries charge for tuition as well. The only difference is that they do so in the form of across-the-board taxation. 98.180.53.48 (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above. Simply too trivial, and not headline news coverage.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with commenters above that this is too trivial for ITN. It's a pretty nice article, though Küñall (talk) 06:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. "Too trivial" is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT and shouldn't be enough to prevent this from being posted. This is a news item with (what even some who oppose this concede is) a decent article to highlight, which is the purpose of ITN. 331dot (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, "Too trivial" is a judgement we frequently make here. Mainstream media frequently cover Hollywood romances and babies, and in my country recently, royal tours. Thankfully, we don't post them here, They are too trivial. HiLo48 (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a big difference between opposing something because we are not a tabloid news ticker and opposing something because it deals with video games, which is essentially how I interpret most of the opposition here. I don't see why video games are any less valid a subject to post about; millions play video games of all nationalities, ages, races, and genders. Further, in dismissing this as "trivial" the fact that we have a decent article to highlight about a notable historical event (the main purpose of ITN) is being ignored. 331dot (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * IMO "too trivial" means "not notable enough" which, though subjective, is not quite the same as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you want to make a notability argument then I at least am all ears. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You can certainly hold that opinion, though I disagree. Without an explanation as to why, "not notable enough" could also be IDONTLIKEIT. I won't regurgitate the arguments that have been made already. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose I guess I just don't get it. Atari couldn't sell a rotten title so they sent the ones they couldn't sell to landfill.  Someone's dug through the landfill and found them.  What's the story here exactly? GoldenRing (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There was not certainty that this dump of games existed, and it is representative of a notable time in the history of video games, the 1983 crash. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Is the uncertainty supposed to create some sense of excitement about this?  I still don't see it.  I'd guess that there is a fair bit of uncertainty about what's in most landfills around the world; the only slightly surprising thing really is that they had any idea at all where to look.  I'm still not seeing it as a big deal.  Perhaps I was too young in 1983 to really get it.  GoldenRing (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Suggest closing. No consensus to post and story is growing stale. Rhodesisland (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

[Ready] RD: Hans Hollein

 * Support once article is updated to reflect his death. Obits currently appearing in the media (e.g. Wash Post) make him look notable to me. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. I believe this man meets DC2(very important in his field) and merits posting, once sufficiently updated. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose until article is longer. At present the article says nothing about his style, influences, his impact/legacy, nor his cause of death. Who were his professors? What design work did he do? Abductive  (reasoning) 22:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You can say is succinct, but not that it says "nothing" about his work. One can spend easily half an hour by reading the article carefully, following the links to his works (all key works are listed), looking at the pictures. Will add to it as I find time, as will others, but this is a good start class article. Precise cause of death hasn't been specified other than 'severe illness', but at age 80 is not a surprise, nor very relevant. -- ELEKHHT 23:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The readers are not going to look through the links. ITN and ITN/RD are supposed to highlight Wikipedia's best work. ITN and RD are not an attempt to be a news service, nor a way to draw attention to articles that are half-finished. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's my first RD nomination, so I wasn't aware that "ITN/RD are supposed to highlight Wikipedia's best work", particularly as I couldn't see that in the criteria. -- ELEKHHT 09:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please, don't be sorry - thank you for your useful nomination. The purpose of ITN is * To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news. * To feature quality Wikipedia content on current events. * To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them. * To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource. (WP:ITN). The 'featured article' section is for highlighting wikipedia's best work; Your nomination was entirely appropriate in my view. Looking forward to your future nominations! Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I too would like to see a more extensive article before posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Me too. Help appreciated. -- ELEKHHT 09:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I am neutral if the awards section is referenced, but could support if the article is expanded. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Some interesting little buildings, but no major office building, apartment complexes skyscrapers--mainly just art museums and the conspicuous consumption of bank--i.e., no real effect outside a self-selecton pretigious clique. μηδείς (talk) 05:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * One could argue that art museums etc represent the avant garde. Bank buildings = office buildings, surely? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose a bank headquarters is a corporate vanity project, as are museums. No one seems to have sought him out for money making commercial and residential products.  It's like homoring the pink mohawk rather than Vidal Sassoon's invention of the elegant bt practical ready-to-wear haircut. μηδείς (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - ah, he should have died in a train derailment, would be up now with a full blurb... -- ELEKHHT 09:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A train crash that killed one person would rarely have an article, let alone a blurb on ITN. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Just follow the link above. Interestingly that's a shorter article, but you considered it "decent start-class article, it is ready for posting". -- ELEKHHT 01:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is almost exactly the same size - 2250 bytes of prose vs. 2350. More relevantly, an article's class is not determined by length, but rather completeness.  A very notable subject could be incomplete even with 20k of prose.  I expect a RD candidate to be reasonably complete (C/B class), whereas a breaking news story can't be complete by nature and thus a start class article is the expectation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining this. Good to understand the logic behind. So the measure of being worthwhile for placing an item on the main page is not how much useful information is there, but how complete the article is relative to its potential to be complete. -- ELEKHHT 01:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support notable European architect. The article could be extended though. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 10:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support the article and its update meet the RD requirements (as soon as the other prizes are referenced). The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. -- ELEKHHT 01:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Notable architect, though the article needs work. "Vanity projects" make ITN all the time; how about all those national competitions or tournaments? "Canada has the best hockey team". "The US has the best basketball team". "Kenya has the best runners". All possible "vanity project" interpretations of such competitions, yet in no way disparaging their news value. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you think the fact that Kenya has the best runners is a vanity project I do not think that word means what you think it means. μηδείς (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Inconceivable! --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What does Kenya have to do with this nomination, other than delaying the discussion until the RD is no longer news? And what does the alleged "vanity" POV has to do with it? Anyone who reads this succinct article with a bit of attention would realise that your assumptions above are factually wrong: (1) of course many of his commercial clients sought him out for a profit, (2) museums can and are often public projects - not corporate ones, and (3) besides shops and museums he also designed apartment buildings and commercial office buildings. I understand though that the average person's attention span is constantly decreasing (currently average time spent on Wikipedia is less than 5 minutes, compared to 30min on facebook), so readers can't even bother reading until the end a compact article. -- ELEKHHT 07:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Connie Marrero

 * Oppose not clear to me how he meets the RD criteria, but like you, I know nothing about baseball. As for being the oldest living, someone has to be.... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose The "oldest living..." is always going to be one of the most likely to die. Otherwise, obviously a good baseballer, but not outstanding in the league. HiLo48 (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM and HiLo, unless we can get some info on how he meets the RD criteria. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 08:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unremarkable baseball player, played 4 mostly unremarkable years in the Major Leagues, and some good years in a Cuban league. Someone's got to be the oldest at some point, and that person also has to die at some point.  Neither is particularly remarkable.  -- Jayron  32  09:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Being the oldest isn't by itself enough to meet the RD criteria, unless that fact alone somehow makes them very important in their field, which it doesn't here. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm getting the feeling of a "no" for this one.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hillsborough disaster editing controversy

 * Oppose Not big news here in the UK (e.g. it's not in the BBC News top 10 most read stories right now). I don't think we should give stories extra credit for involving wikipedia. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Question - Which top 10 are you referring to? The BBC have just published a piece about the response from the Cabinet Office which appears to be atnumber 4 on the most read box at the right hand side. → Hillsborough Wikipedia posts were 'sickening', Cabinet Office says. A Guardian piece about the families response is at number 8 on their most viewed list. It seems to be fairly big news at the moment.  Green Giant  supports  NonFreeWiki  ( talk )  17:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We're looking at the same one, I see it at number 4 now too. I'm still not sure it's notable for our purposes though - this obviously isn't a government spokesperson or the official government position. Story is just that someone using a government computer has vandalised a wikipedia page in a way which disrespects the dead. This is a PR problem for the Cabinet Office, but is it really any more than that? Nothing - outside of Wikipedia - seems to have actually happened. IIUC the edits were made in 2009 and 2012, the story is happening now because the Liverpool Echo has just noticed them. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose navel gazing. Resolute 17:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not terribly relevant to the UK government, Wikipedia or the Hillsborough disaster. Many news outlets in the UK are running a "new" Hillsborough story everyday it seems, for reasons unknown. --Somchai Sun (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it's bloody obvious why "new" stories are running every day, but it still doesn't make this article suitable for ITN. It is creeping up though (second on the UK BBC News homepage)...  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I mean it in the sense of "they're really making too many stories about this". Every tearful testimony about a victim gets reported on the BBC in great detail, for some reason. Not being insensitive here but it's just...excessive. --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To each, their own. This isn't relevant to the nomination.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Noted COI on Wikipedia is not a news-breaking story. I'm sure there's a proper page on WP that has, as Resolute put it, navel gazing for this type of stuff. (This is ignoring the time frame issue, simply that this is not an ITN) --M ASEM (t) 18:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed there is, see Press coverage --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose any story with 'may have been' blurb is an oppose for nothingness. I 'may have been' on the moon while making this post. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 19:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

News update: not just Hillsborough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balaenoptera musculus (talk • contribs) 17:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 Katanga train derailment

 * Comment Blurb should be "at least 63" per BBC. --M ASEM (t) 00:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: also nominated by Difficultly north (talk) Simply south alt. 00:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment, needs to be longer. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support given the death toll. Neljack (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Insufficient article at this time. I would expect a minimum of three well developed paragraphs before it is featured.  I may work on it in the morning if no one gets to it first. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Event is notable, article is nearly there. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, per Neljack. Brigade Piron (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support because the article seems to have been fleshed out a little more. Despite it still being small, it is noteworthy, well-sourced, and has a nice infobox. Mvblair (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is exactly the same as it was yesterday when first nominated - one paragraph plus one sentence. Writing a start class article is not very hard, and is not too much to ask.  Since no one can be bothered to improve the article, I guess it is up to me... Please do not post this until it is expanded. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ready - now that the article has been built into a decent start-class article, it is ready for posting. The death toll has been revised down to 48, so I changed the blurb accordingly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please update the death toll as per this. Andise1 (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Mark Shand

 * Oppose Doesn't seem to meet any of the RD criteria. Not regarded as a hugely important figure in the field of conservation here in the UK, as far as I know. --Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment care to tell us why he'd meet the RD criteria? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Headline UK news, the Duchess of Cornwall's brother, wrote a BBC documentary, fairly high up in his field from what I can gather. Mat  ty  .  007  18:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seems like most of notability is from being brother of royalty. Not for RD. --M ASEM (t) 18:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Major office in power, being brother in law of next in line to British throne? Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  19:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless we're talking a King Ralph situation, I don't believe he is even in line for the throne. --M ASEM (t) 19:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Brother in law to Charles. Mat  ty  .  007  19:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sorry, but this nom clearly doesn't meet the RD criteria and I see no justification for a blurb either. Pro-Monarchy British news sources do not change this. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "Pro-Monarchy British news sources"? Mat  ty  .  007  19:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Does not meet the death criteria. "Brother of a royal" doesn't count, and his career doesn't seem to make him "top of his field". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Politics of the Palestinian National Authority

 * Support in concept, awaiting article to judge before actual support. The event is surely ITN worthy, we just need an article and update which is likewise.  -- Jayron  32  15:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think Islamic Jihad needs to be included in the blurb. Bellemora (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose because I don't see where the article was updated. It's notable and important, but the article does not reflect any recent developments. Mvblair (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support A significant deal after all this time. Neljack (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, pending update, notable development. Brandmeistertalk  07:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is not the first 'agreement' to heal this rift that has been announced. Similar agreements came out of conferences in Cairo and Doha over the past few years; this seems just another in the same line.  What will be significant is if the deal actually comes off; I think the right time for posting this will be when the unity government is formed, which is supposed to be within the next six weeks. GoldenRing (talk) 09:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per GoldenRing. Wait until the formation of the government (and perhaps, an article?) first. Brigade Piron (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose until this is translated into action, per GoldenRing and Brigade Piron. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Record drug sales

 * It's like when The Eagles started charging $200 for their concerts. The rest quickly followed suit. I'm neutral but leaning support on this, but only because the drug itself has been in the news lately and is a promising treatment for what was previously a life sentence. -  Floydian  τ ¢  19:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose low-level business news. If this is supposed to be about Hep C or something other than revenue, the blurb needs to be changed.84.250.106.213 (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you please define what is "high-level" business news, as every business story offered is opposed for one reason or another. I honestly have no clue what you mean... How often does a product set industry sales record?  That is the half story here.  The other half is that the success of the new picing strategy will have long term impacts on the industry, which is the kind of thing people typically say they want to see.  That is an extremely rare combination of factors.--ThaddeusB (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I appreciate that more business news would be good here, but somehow, "highest ever sales for the first quarter after release," seems a bit too specific to me. Products set industry sales records all the time, I should think.  GoldenRing (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Boko Haram kidnapping

 * Comment - As these are presumably female humans, can we call the women, or girls, or something, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Like...and pretty much what were discussing in talk about RDLihaas (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again, you excel with incomprehensible commentary. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - Thought about nominating this last night, but the kidnapping actually took place on April 14. Evidentally, original reports said 80ish victims were taken but all recovered quickly so the story didn't make it out of Nigeria.  Some parents are now claiming a bunch of people are missing and that the gov't is covering it up (or possibly that the gov't just had bad info).  Tough to call the story "stale" since very few people knew about it before yesterday, but also tough to call it "fresh" considering the kidnapping happened a week ago... I'd like to here some more opinions on how to handle this, as I am utterly undecided. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. If this only just broke in the English press it is not stale.  Same as if we discovered a poem by a greek poetess published 2500 years ago. μηδείς (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It broke several days ago (nearly a wek), the numbder just got updatedLihaas (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose—stale. First entered English media as early as 18 April 2014 from CNN with information regarding the 234 kidnapped girls. This is not breaking news; this is coming very late into the scene. 184.146.107.202 (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You'll notice the CNN story is "last update April 22". Most likely, it originally said "80 girls". (The piece isn't really about the kidnapping but Boko Haram in general, which is consistent with the original story barely being noticed.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support with rewrite Something along the lines of "230 female students are declared missing following a kidnapping by Boko Haram in Borno State, Nigeria." (Using The Guardian's numbers) That way, we can cover the latest update the story, without pretending the kidnap is recent. The article also needs to be rewritten to reflect this, of course. Smurrayinchester 07:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * comment this is possible stale since it happened a week ago.Lihaas (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment This broke in English media a while ago (they were saying 100 girls). I thought about nominating it at the time but it was just after the previous Boko Haram story, and some people were of the opinion that we should cover the conflict as a whole rather than each individual incident. That said, if we have good a good article or section on this specific incident then I'd probably support Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I understand this story is stale, but that's not because the story was simply "missed" or initially ignored by Western Media: It's just been developing a little slowly. Read into that what you will, but is the "staleness" of this story justification enough for it to not be posted? --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * After some thought, support and use an blurb similar to that suggested by User:Smurrayinchester. It isn't our fault it took a while for the news to get out/story to develop.  I have no problem posting this as a April 21 item.  An article now exists and several editors (,, and myself) are now working on it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support This incident is the worst thing that we can imagine that could happen in any society whether it is east or west. What I was trying to explain from the first is that this story has not been covered properly by mainstream medias. I am not sure the reason behind that but I know this needs to be a hot topic for discussion and media coverage. For that reason I created the article. It deserves top attention. Ashish Lohorung (talk) 09:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Media do seem wrong to have given it so little coverage. That it came so soon after the bombing in the capital may be the reason for that; but it doesn't make this event any less notable in itself. We now have a solid article on this so I propose we post it ASAP. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

- Posted Smurrayinchester 09:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support with the altblurb. This is a relatively slow-burning story now, shamefully, but it's definitely in the news. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would prefer not to post this since I updated the article. It has been marked "ready" now (not by me), with pretty obvious consensus, for 18 hours.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Go for it Thaddeus. Even without you comment the consensus would be clear. μηδείς (talk) 05:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Commment. This is actually now stale, since it happened on 15th April. Formerip (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you read the discussion? The whole debate was about whether it was OK to post now (when the # is kidnappees emerged) or not (since eth actual event happened a wewek ago).  We decided it was OK to post now with an alert blurb that reflected new info had emerged. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

WISE 0855–0714

 * Oppose not really seeing this in the news anywhere, and the article is nowhere near the quality/length required to meet the minimum standards for ITN inclusion. Snappy name for the "planetary mass object" mind you...The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The article now uses the shorter title instead of WISE J085510.83–071442.5. Nestrs (talk) 09:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose, this is In The News, not In The Primary Literature. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose since this isn't showing up in regular news. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd support this if/when the item does hit the news, and if we can add a bit more detail to the article. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose In astronomical terms, not especially impressive. Closer brown dwarfs have been discovered (although in a binary system, rather than alone: Luhman 16). There are (according to theory) lots of brown dwarfs floating around in space - so far the WISE data has revealed over one hundred in our neighbourhood. The problem is that they are cold, dark and don't weigh much (in a relative sense!), which makes them very difficult to pick up against the background. Smurrayinchester 14:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Riyadh compound bombings convinctions

 * Oppose Sorry to be going through and opposing lots of your noms, Thaddeus; I promise it isn't personal. This one seems to me not significant in current world news.  The bombing itself was significant, sure; this is the cleanup afterwards. GoldenRing (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

US drone attacks on Al Qaeda in Yemen

 * Oppose as the article does not seem to have been updated at all. Otherwise I'd support this.  I've added an altblurb that at least adds some verbs to the sentence. GoldenRing (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support now the article has been updated. GoldenRing (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Main article updated, drone article doesn't need update. "Massive and unprecedented" is quote from Yemeni government via CNN, make of it what you will... This is definitely a series of attacks over multiple days on multiple targets, with casualties somewhere between 40 and 70. Image provided is the Black flag of jihad which we use on the AQAP page but may want to think twice about using on the Main Page. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC) NYT says "the largest barrage of airstrikes carried out in Yemen this year ... and one of the largest strikes carried out since President Obama outlined a new strategy last May for targeting Qaeda militants in battlefields outside Afghanistan" Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose on reliability and notability. As we don't actually know the extent of drone operations in the world, it's impossible for us to determine whether or not a particular event is "large" or "unprecendented".  And without those qualifiers, this article becomes "drones attack target", which no one thinks is notable.128.214.172.232 (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Definitely no that flag to front page, it has only tangential relation to the event, at best. Since even the nominator seems to question it, I have commented the image off. --hydrox (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 Boston Marathon

 * Question would we normally post both men and women's results? Or is it considered one race? --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We normally post both winners, see altblurb. The article will need more prose on the race.  See 2014 London Marathon as an example of what we are looking for.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks. I wasn't sure how it went, I have been (slowly) expanding the race section. --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Notable per ITN/R & good articles. I've edited 2014 Boston Marathon into the past tense. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted ITNR and article of adequate quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Would it be appropriate to put a cropped pic from one of the articles (maybe Rita Jeptoo, since we usually run male pics. A female pic would be nice).  It should be pretty easy to take one like File:Rita jeptoo 2013 boston marathon.jpg and crop it to show her face better.  I've done this before, but I always mess something up, and David Levy has to have words with me over it... -- Jayron  32  18:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if my messages have come across as rude. My intent was only to inform you of the issues.  —David Levy 20:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, not at all. It's a statement of my own inability to do it correct.  If I do something wrong, you're always invited to fix it.  -- Jayron  32  20:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you crop and upload a picture to File:Rita Jeptoo (cropped).jpg (on Wikipedia not Commons), I'll do the rest. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have uploded a local cropped version to File:Rita Jeptoo (cropped).jpg. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have updated it as a crop from File:Rita Jeptoo in 2014 Boston Marathon.jpg which is actually from the 2014 Marathon, and she is looking towards the page, more MOS complaint-like. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've updated ITN's image. —David Levy 20:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hes Eritrean...traeachery! give up the Hhabeshas... never mind that im not residing where I was born ;) Lihaas (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

[posted to RD] Rubin Carter

 * Support RD - subject has had multiple songs, books, and movies made about him. There are a few unreferenced paragraphs in the article - hopefully those can be fixed before posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume the criteria being asserted is DC2 (very important figure in his or her field) but in this case is it being claimed they are important in the boxing field or the legal field(for being wrongly convicted and his work afterwards), or a combination? 331dot (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say more significant as someone wrongly convicted, and his work thereafter. He is probably more well know for that (at least these days), although my knowledge of boxing is not significant, in particular boxing in the 1960s. --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose The person doesn't seem to have achieved fame in his field. Maybe he was more famous for being wrongfully convicted and imprisoned, but thus he didn't contribute to advance anything or make any impact in the global society.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's like opposing Rosa Parks because she didn't do any significant secretarial work. The fact that he was a boxer is just a sidebar. Like Rosa Parks, Rubin Carter was a major lightning rod in the American Civil Rights movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.223 (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support in principle as fascinating, encyclopedic subject with high reader interest, subject influential in two fields. Article needs tenses changed and could use better referencing. μηδείς (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I just went over it and I think all the tenses are updated, although the referencing does need work. --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support pending further update. "Maybe he was more famous for being wrongfully convicted and imprisoned, but thus he didn't contribute to advance anything or make any impact in the global society." Really now? I'm so glad that promoting awareness of wrongful convictions does absolutely nothing to advance anything. Maybe I'll go act in some two-bit musical TV show instead. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support This is the death of the Hurricane....  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support RD. Interesting crossover between sports and crime/law topics in additional to someone with a biographical film. --M ASEM (t) 17:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support for RD. Well known figure. No opposition to this being a full blurb, if there is consensus to do so.  Calidum   17:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Support for RD Weak because famous primarily for what was done to him rather than for what he did. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. -- Jayron  32  20:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment — Hurricane (Bob Dylan song) was one of Bob's best:
 * To see him obviously framed
 * Couldn’t help but make me feel ashamed
 * To live in a land where justice is a game...
 * Sca (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * R.I.P. Rubin, ride on where the trout streams flow and the air is nice.. --hydrox (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Id say Blowin in the wing, but yes his was one of the first awakening to the police state that we are now in (or approaching) Mind you we should always keep our standards FAR higher than N. Korea et al instead of approaching it Lihaas (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted to Ongoing] Ukraine
Support - same issue re Korean Ferry, discussion below. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose blurb acting as sticky. Neutral on a two word "Ukrainian unrest" sticky next to "more news". --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "At least" three killed near Sloviansk early Easter Sunday, despite "truce."  I don't see how we can ignore this. Sca (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we should use one of the ITN bullet-points for 'ongoing' news items, in a combined blurb ? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea. Perhaps suggest on talk adding a "other ongoing news: X, Y, Z" line akin to the RD line?  Certainly not something we can decide without discussion as it would be a rather significant change. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support sticky This is an ongoing situation with lots of news, and lots of interest. We've done this in the past (Syria most recently) and this certainly seems to merit one.  -- Jayron  32  02:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I thought we tried to avoid stickies these days? The 'ongoing ticker' could be of use, mind... doktorb wordsdeeds 02:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The ongoing ticker idea is now being discussed on talk. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "Three to five" killed by Ukrainian forces April 24 near Slaviansk. Sca (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Iran nuclear deal

 * Wait So far, media are reporting this as "Iran state TV says", "Iran Vice President says", "Iranian official says", and similar. I think we should wait until statements from the other side in the negotiations confirm what the Iranian side is saying. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Meh Iran agrees to deals it plans to ignore entirely every so often just to keep the international community off its back for a little while. There's nothing to suppose this is anything more than "Iran says 'sure, we'll agree to stop doing that' while it keeps on doing it anyways".  -- Jayron  32  19:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Jayron32, unless you have evidence that the Iranian government has entered into this agreement in bad faith, that's really just speculation. We shouldn't be basing our decisions on our personal views of the Iranian regime. If there is an agreement, then clearly the US, the UK, France, Russia, China and Germany think that there is a prospect that Iran will actually carry it out, or else they wouldn't agree to it. It's also worth noting that there has been a change in government since most of the previous negotiations - the new President is significantly more moderate. Neljack (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Point taken.  -- Jayron  32  01:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak support - Per Neljack, it is not up to us to decide if Iran will follow through, and thus it looks like a significant agreement. However, the level of coverage I'm seeing is not that great so I can only weakly support.  The article is not updated, so my support is conditional on an update. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] 2014 Guerrero earthquake

 * Tentative Oppose Initial reports are stating there's no known fatalities or major damage, but that's it. Mind you, the reports from Mexico City, far from the quakes epicenter, are light, and it will likely take some time for those near the epicenter to report in, but we're also talking about more rural Mexico there, so would not expect much there as well. --M ASEM (t) 22:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose as of six hours ago, the BBC reported "There are no reports of casualties or significant damage". The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose if existing reports of no deaths and no serious damage turn out to be accurate. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, 7.0 is the usual lower limit for an article, not for posting to ITN. There seems to be ongoing earthquake activity on the planet right now, perhaps one will come along that kills a lot of people so it can be posted to ITN. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Balaenoptera musculus. Rhodesisland (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] LADEE crashes into the Moon

 * Support for RD. Sad day indeed. *cough* I mean, LADEE does seem to be a prominent enough spacecraft. Weak support I guess. --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose – doesn't really seem like science "news", so much as a procedural fact about a particular mission reaching a particular phase. IMO it would be more newsworthy if NASA publishes some interesting findings from the mission.  It Is Me Here  t /  c  21:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Question - did it do or discover anything particularly novel or important? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes: it was the first mission to use long-distance laser communication and made major discoveries about the thin atmosphere of the Moon. Because it was a short mission, little has been published yet and lots of analysis is still to be done, but it was clearly a success in both scientific and technological senses. Modest Genius talk 22:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak support then, blurb ideally mentioning those two things. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the crash landing was not intended to kick up material for study, so it is just a routine event. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Deliberately destroying $280m space probes is not a 'routine event'. You can argue the significance if you like, but not that it's routine! <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 22:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Change the title of this section to "LADEE space mission successfully ends as planned on the surface of the moon". Emphasise the mission, not the crash. Making it positive might elicit more positive responses. 22:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the spacecraft didn't intentionally crash into the moon. A suicidal spacecraft would be news. Bellemora (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Do read the source. HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Second paragraph of lead... "The mission ended on April 18, 2014, when LADEE was intentionally crashed into the far side of the Moon." The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "was intentionally crashed" not "intentionally crashed". The intention was NASA's not the spacecraft's. Bellemora (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC) (That's why I added the altblurb.) Bellemora (talk) 08:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb per Modest Genius' and Bellemora's reasonings, but change the "it" to "the spacecraft". Rhodesisland (talk) 11:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support for RD as well, as LADEE Spacecraft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs)
 * Marked Ready well supported, well updated, suggest RD is okay instead of blurb, but the item should be posted either way as the admin determines. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD posting Adding this to RD seems a little "jokey" to me. It might even seem a little derogatory to the people listed in RD. This is the end of a mission by NASA not a death and should be posted as we would/have other mission endings. Still Support posting ITN. Rhodesisland (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted - the consensus is a bit hard to read since three options were offered (blurb, RD, no post), but there seems to be enough support for some kind of post to justify posting. Among those who supported, a full blurb is preferred, so that is what I did.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * According to the Aug 2012 RfC that established RD, User:ThaddeusB, three-way votes were to be viewed as an oppose consensus if total opposes outweighed total supports of any type, RD or blurb. And supports for a full blurb were to be counted as supports for, RD if full blurb did not gain consensus outright.  I am not disagreeing with your decision, just pointing out that posting of some sort was indeed called for here.  Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * True on RDs in general (thanks for reminding me). This was kind of a unique situation though, as some posters (per talk) are clearly opposed to non-human RDs.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Opposition based on such literal-mindedness seem more pathological than logical. There's a reason unique craft are referred to as she, and such notable animals and craft that meet their demise certainly deserve more attention than little old ladies who never did anything except die at 116 y/o. μηδείς (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] South Sudan UN base stormed

 * More notable is the take over of the oilfields than this. This particular event has already lef to increased security there and isnot as unstable. Also there is a nother article out there that we posted in December,.
 * I support the posting of something to do with S. Sudan, but not the blurb proposed. The take over of the oil fields and that Aguer silly commentary/stupidity) is more indicative of instabilityLihaas (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What was the Aguer silly commentary/stupidity ? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * 'Support given the scale of the casualties. Neljack (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)'
 * 'Support This was a major attack on civilians working with the United Nations, i.e. neutral folks, not participants in the civil war. High death toll. HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per HiLo; attacks on UN facilities/missions are notable, along with the significant casualties. 331dot (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per the reasons above. The article could use a lot more bulk, but it is interesting enough for me to click on a couple of links that brings a lot more information. Mvblair (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment orange maintenance tag still exists in target article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not certain that all 58 of those killed were civilians, it seems that most of them were but a few of them may have been among the attackers, which would make them sort-of not civilians. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Newer reports indicate 58 deaths of which 48 were civilians and 10 attackers. Further detail in the article. UN security council has issued a statement calling the attack a war crime. I'm amending the blurb to correct erroneous '58 civilians'. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * comment UNMISS is a broader scope, the directly relevant article is South Sudanese conflict (2013–14) which really ought to be South Sudanese civil war, as sources are increasingly referring to it.Lihaas (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We could use both - I've put this as the altblurb: "UN base in Bor attacked in South Sudanese conflict, 58 die including 48 civilians". I've added South_Sudanese_conflict_(2013–14) to the template above pro tem, as article2, needing updating. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In that cse take my [mild] objection as a support. Resolvedit all and its unanimous. Someone pleas emark ready if the requisite 2-3 sentences updateS are there.Lihaas (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * TRM has noted the existance of problems that do not yet seem to be resolved. -- Jayron  32  23:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The second article was since added...? Post with that and then bold the other when its done?Lihaas (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've done a minimal update on the second article (South sudanese conflict) but really this set of related articles needs substantial revision/re-organising/merging/something (South Sudanese conflict (2013–14), Ethnic violence in South Sudan (2011–present), Sudanese nomadic conflicts) - so we might want to stick to the original blurb and just use the UNMISS article for ITN. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is the "blurb" in headlinese? This isn't normal practice, is it? 58 people, including 48 civilians, die in an attack on the UN base in Bor, South Sudan. Bellemora (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Support adding support for when the articles are ready. Rhodesisland (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Update? — BBC quotes UN report saying "hundreds" killed at Bentiu last week. Sca (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted a version of the attack on the UN base. If a different/more up-to-date blurb is desired, I would suggest making a new nomination --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Algerian president
Support Notable per ITN/R, article is OK. Blurb: suggest we wikilink Algeria. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be better to link the more directly relevant President of Algeria if we are going down that road. See altblurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Altblurb looks fine.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  22:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Marking ready. On ITNR, and the article has been updated and is decent enough quality to post. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 22:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted (having fixed all the bare references). The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 Mount Everest avalanche

 * Support - per TRMs reasoning. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support on the basis that using the last major Everest climbing loss (1996?) article as an example, this short article will likely grow as investigators determine what went wrong in time. --M ASEM (t) 15:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * lean oppose, but weakly article needs improvement. And the loss of life on its own is not notable, per precedent, but if its a famous first then i would support it as a minority topicLihaas (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Which Everest/avalanche precedent? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Being a "famous first" isn't an ITN requirement. Probably 90% of what we post is not a first.  That said this is "famous" (being widely reported around the world) and a "first" (most deaths ever on Everest). --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Very sad event.  I like mountaineering, but there are many similar sad events around the world almost every week where 10 - 20 people lose their lives.  I don't see this story as being particularly widely reported or prominent compared to other items currently in the news. On the plus side, this is the worst mountaineering disaster on Everest, but there have been worse accidents on other mountains, such as 43 dead on Mt. Lenin. Jehochman Talk 16:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's more about the victims really, and for diversity here at ITN that we're always looking for. We posted a plane crash in which three people died...  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you are looking at, but the sources in the article alone show this is being covered in depth by some of the best newspapers in the world. See NY Times for example. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support People lose their lives accidentally in traffic collisions, airplane crashes or bomb blasts fairly frequent, but it's not so often when climbing Mount Everest. The death toll is also high for one such accident, albeit not if compared to accidents of different kind, and the news receives attention worldwide.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "... but it's not so often when climbing Mount Everest" I'd say one in ten attempts resulting in death is quite common.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Difference being these guys were preparing the mountain for tourists, earning next-to-nothing for doing so. And this is the worst death toll in a single day, would you suggest that we wouldn't have posted the 1996 Mount Everest disaster if ITN had been around?  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose, deaths on Everest are commonplace. More people are climbing nowadays, meaning that the number of dead is consistent with the risk. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's the multiple deaths associated with a single natural "disaster" (the avalache), while they were in the middle of a job they were doing. Yes, people die attempting to climb Everett on their own violation, one could argue that's Darwin's law in play, but this is far different from that. --M ASEM  (t) 18:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I withdraw my oppose. I heard an in-depth story on NPR about how these guys don't have sufficient life insurance for the task. That costs as interesting secondary analysis for me. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - This seems clearly notable as the largest number of people to ever die in one event on Mount Everest. While people die every year on Everest, more than 2 or 3 people dying in a single event is very unusual. Calathan (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per TRM. Neljack (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If this was any other mountain, would we even think about posting it? People die on Everest all the time (sadly). So many in one incident is unusual, but twelve is still a small number in the grand scheme of things. We can't post every avalanche that kills a dozen people, and I don't see why being on Everest makes this any more significant. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 22:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support It's precisely because it's on Everest, and that it involves the locals, that makes this significant. They were only there to pave the way for rich bastards from first world countries, who I hope will now find a way to support their families forever. HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per the reasons given; Everest is more notable than other mountains being the tallest in the world, so disasters there are more notable than if they occurred elsewhere. 331dot (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is borderline, and of interest in a record book sort of way. But the article, even though it has been stretched into three "paragraphs" is really only one, and it seems doubtful anything more than an entry in a list is really warranted here notabilitiwise.  Prior events on Everest have involved the deliberate abandonment of climbers.  Here there was simply a natural event, no evidence of human malfeasance. 01:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs)
 * The article has already been expanded and no doubt there will be much more on this over the coming days. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Deadliest accident ever on the world's highest mountain. Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - some of the arguments above are quite strange. Of course it is more notable because it happened on Everest (and 12-16 dead in any avalanche is already significant).  Additionally, this is drawing attention to the plight of the Sherpa people, something few tourist climbers ever consider, and even fewer regular people are even aware of. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, I am not sure "Sherpas" is technically correct. It is correct in the sense that the term is often used as a synonym for climbing guide, but not all guides are ethnically Sherpa (most Everest guides are, but some are members of other ethnic groups).  Its unclear to me if all of the 12+ killed here were Sherpa. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Marked ready, consensus is clear and update sufficient. μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support because although the immediate cause was a natural disaster, the indirect cause was exploitative tourism. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Attention Needed as an oppose, I feel safe in saying that with an 11-4 support, this should be posted ven by the nominator or updater at this point, unless there's some technical problem I missed with the article. μηδείς (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted as clear consensus exists. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I feel as though the blurb should be changed to:
 * "At least twelve Sherpas are killed in an avalanche on Mount Everest."
 * i.e. The word avalanche should be bolded and linked instead of killed. It just seems more consistent with the other news stories. Thoughts? 66.249.84.233 (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * support, because 'avalanche' more specific. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Half thought about that when I posted it but thought that someone may have considered suggesting something different during the voluminous nomination process. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * comment## Im not saying this was under dispute to post as there was a majority in support, but theres at least a COI in the nominator posting it. Theres plenty of admins who can psot.Lihaas (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To be fair, consensus was pretty strong (against me), and one opposer had already said they wouldn't object to the nominator posting it themsevles. I think we've fallen into a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS trap here - many of the arguments above were essentially 'they're poor an exploited, so of course we should post it'. I disagree with that reasoning, but not with the mechanics of judging consensus and actually posting it. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 22:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I can speak only for myself, but my support had nothing to do with the plight of the Sherpas, but actually the fact that the avalanche was drawing attention to that plight. That is, having a secondary effect beyond the body count.  Ideally that is what we look for in any disaster.  (I would have also supported it if 12 western climbers died in a single event on Everest, and I'm sure others would have too.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My oppose as well had nothing to do with the victims being Sherpas. Given the overwhelming consensus and the fact that even opposes like myself could se it, and the dearth of active admins here, there was no reason an involved party should act after this rather decent interval.  Had the poster reverted his own vote, or whatever its called, just for the sake of appearances, there'd still have been overeffingwhelming support. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I'd have posted it if I wasn't on a phone at the weekend. That The Rambling Man got to it first therefore makes no difference to the end result, and no harm was done. Stephen 02:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite, I waited 11 hours from when this was marked Ready to posting it. "Theres plenty of admins who can psot" doesn't seem to be true in this instance.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Human clone

 * I wouldn't say "human clone", readers will think there is a baby. They created some stem cells. Given the embarrassing incident with posting the last stem cell thing, and the South Korean fraud incident, would it not be preferable to Wait for confirmation by another lab? Abductive  (reasoning) 01:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "human embryonic clone" - please suggest better wording if you can. As to timing, the story is in the news now, and is being covered by the cream of the crop news sources.  There will barely be a blip when it is confirmed (which due to the legal situation of cloning might not be anytime soon either).  I feel now is the best time to post; using language like "announce" implies it hasn't been confirmed yet. (Incidentally, I am not sure what you are referencing when you say South Korean fraud.)--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Have a look at Hwang Woo-suk, particularly the Controversies section. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment As a note given this is a scientific item, this is a story that comes from publication of the research in a peer-reversed journal (per the Telegraph's article), as opposed to a lab making the jump before scrutiny has been applied. --M ASEM (t) 01:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. Peer review implies a certain (but not perfect) level of review has taken place. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I'd like the blurb to be more precise. These guys didn't simply create an embryo from adult cells. They used a normal human egg as the basis of their work. The Telegraph article says: "The technique works by removing the nucleus from an unfertilised egg and replacing it with the nucleus of a skin cell. An electric shock causes the cells to begin dividing until they form a ‘blastocyst’ – a small ball of a few hundred cells." It's important to say that that this process still involves a normal human egg. How about the blurb saying: "Scientists announce a human embryonic clone from adult tissue by replacing the nucleus of a normal unfertilised egg with the nucleus of an adult skin cell."? HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good - I shortened/tweaked it a bit and put it as the alt blurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have trimmed even more. Also, I made it clear that there is no baby. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support (with altblurb) major technical achievement, and links are a gateway to many nice articles. I will point out that "cloning" has both a rather dry technical meaning, and a very sensational popular meaning, and could confuse readers.  I have changed the altblurb to more precisely reflect what's going on here, and to be more succinct.  BR128.214.214.31 (talk) 07:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support revised blurbs. As said above, cloning has a different meaning in popular usage than in scientific (that is, when I see "cloning," I automatically think scientists created a t-rex or something). The revised blurbs do not reflect that popular connotation and are good in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvblair (talk • contribs)
 * Support - cloning,, hmm interesting.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I will work on the article in a few hours - it is not ready for posting at current. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 - because it's the clearest explanation of what this particular breakthrough is, to my mind. Agree with User:Mvblair that we want to avoid implying the 'boba fett' kind of cloning. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support alt2 after the article is updated.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  22:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Updated and marked ready --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted]: Gabriel García Márquez died

 * Support per death criterion 2, 'widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field'. Nobel Prize for Literature, world figure in his field. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong support for full blurb — One of the Spanish literature giants. I think his death should be posted as a full blurb. He is widely regarded as the most popular writer in Spanish since Miguel de Cervantes in the 17th century. ComputerJA (  ☎  •  ✎  ) 20:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Posting to RD for now, probably a full blurb is in place when there's a bit more update. --Tone 20:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @Tone: Thanks for the speedy posting. Good call on your part. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 20:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support full blurb was a key member of the Latin American Boom and won a Nobel Prize; one of the most important authors in the past century.  Spencer T♦ C 21:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support full blurb I have updated the article to a 5-lines paragraph. It is already tagged as a good article. Cambalachero (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support full blurb common sense, one of the great figures of Spanish literature. Secret account 21:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support full blurb per Computer JA.
 * Not Updated a shoe-in for a full blurb, but the article is still in the present tense. μηδείς (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support full blurb Márquez was definitely one of the most sound names in both Spanish-language and modern literature and definitely one of the greatest and most popular writers of our generation.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ready The article now appears to stand in a good shape and the death section is sufficiently updated to go on the main page. Marking ready.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support blurb I have very high standards for a blurb, but I think Marquez meets them. Undoubtedly one of the most important writers of the last half-century. Many people would say he was the most important Spanish-language writer since Cervantes. Neljack (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Seeing the news coverage and reading about him, I do think a blurb is warranted. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Nobel laureate, most important Latin American writer ever, and who hasn't read One Hundred Years of Solitude on the subway? Daniel Case (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support full blurb, the passing of a literary giant. Nsk92 (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support blurb The overwhelming consensus here for a full blurb is pretty convincing. Let's get it up asap. Redverton (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted per overwhelming consensus here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The blurb says nothing! Please add something such as "Nobel Laureate" or One Hundred Years of Solitude. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Good call and good response.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  22:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Kepler-186f

 * Nom. --bender235 (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Major news, article already looking good. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Nergaal (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support—significant scientific discovery pertaining to space exploration and finding life outside of Earth. 184.146.116.16 (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Astredita (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Dammit, I was about to nominate this! Oh well... Anyway, this is clearly a significant discovery (like Enceladus' ocean). Jinkinson   talk to me  20:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Blurb is incorrect - there is no way to know if a planet is habitable or not. Being in the habitable zone just means it might be habitable.  Please don't equate the two on the home page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur, it should say habitable zone. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The article says "near" its habitable zone. Does that mean it lies just outside the zone? Abductive  (reasoning) 01:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Before that point in the article, the article says it is in the HZ. Where is it in the HZ? Near the outer edge. Astredita (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This detail definitely needs cleared up (in the article) before the story is posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The word "near" has been replaced with "so although it is within the habitable zone it is near the outer edge of the zone Astredita (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Issues seem to be resolved in the article, posting. --Tone 09:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] [RD] Karpal Singh

 * Comment. Which of the Recent Deaths criteria does this person meet?  Note; If this is an RD nomination, a proposed blurb is unnecessary. 331dot (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going for RD nomination. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As 331dot asks, which of the RD criteria does this gentleman meet? In any case, the article needs to be updated to reflect the fact he has died, tense changes etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Karpal Singh gained some fame in Australia and New Zealand for defending citizens of those countries accused of frug trafficking. It's mentioned in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Say no to frugs. Stephen 07:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Are we saying he is very important to the legal field, then? He was also twice charged with sedition which seems (from reading the article) to be a unique situation. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support RD Seems to have been a significant figure in Malaysian politics, as well as being known internationally for his criminal law work. GoldenRing (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose No rationale, neither the death itself or the career itself meets ITN criteria. μηδείς (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose; I too do not see a satisfactory rationale at this time. 331dot (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per those concerned over how this nomination meets the RD criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose ditto The Rambling Man. Rhodesisland (talk) 11:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Juno protein

 * I have tried to improve the blurb. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - interesting and important discovery. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have some concerns: the researchers say that the gene is named Folr4 and propose renaming it Juno. I am unsure if they have the authority to do such a rename. Quite unusually, there is no Wikipedia article for Folr4. The stub at Juno (protein) is missing the Template:Infobox protein that would go a long way towards rounding out the article. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yah, perhaps move the article to Folr4 for now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That was my thinking. When whatever committee gets around to renaming it Juno the article can always be moved back. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - this looks interesting, but I wouldn't say it looks important; the discovery is important for our understanding of the mechanics of mammalian reproduction but it's not really going to change anything, is it? If it is going to change something, I'd like to see some indication of what in the article.  GoldenRing (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * According to findings, female mice without that protein (and, most likely, humans as well) become infertile, so I'd say it's a milestone discovery. Brandmeistertalk  08:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How much of a milestone surely depends on what proportion of infetility cases are caused by the lack of the protien. If it's only the cause of infertility for a tiny fraction of those affected, then this isn't that practically important. MChesterMC (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Saying that female mice without the protein become infertile is not the same thing as saying it is a cause of infertility unless you also show that there are naturally-occurring individuals who lack that protein. If the headline is actually 'Scientists discover major cause of infertility' then my vote changes to support - but that's not what I'm seeing here.  GoldenRing (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Interesting, and this paper has certainly gone towards the top of my to-read list, but until it's been shown to be strongly involved in human infertility etc I don't see what the wider appeal is. Regarding the above comment of "and, most likely, humans as well", that is for the moment completely and utterly unfounded, until shown otherwise. Fgf10 (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak support Discovery is interesting if not world-shattering, article is good if a bit technical for the lay reader. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support historically a much more important development than the Everest fall, may explain many case of infertility. μηδείς (talk) 05:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Korean ferry sinking

 * Comment Noting that there's more than just students on the ferry. --M ASEM (t) 02:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Tentative Oppose From the reports, there is an orderly rescue process going on in place, no deaths reported as of yet. Sounds like there was time for them to warn passangers and alert coast guard units for rescue. If this turns more tragic, that might mean something. Changing to Tentative support due to lack of information incoming Full Support  --M ASEM  (t) 02:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * All the students and teachers have now been rescued. . So yeah, still looking like this isn't going to be a significant ITN story. --M ASEM (t) 03:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Conflicting reports. It looks like the Reuters story has been revised since you read it. "But it later described those figures as a miscalculation, turning what had at first appeared to be a largely successful rescue operation into potentially a major disaster." Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, definitely some initial sloppy reporting and/or attempts to downplay the incident. --M ASEM (t) 14:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * One confirmed death, and initial reports are saying the ship ran aground. I'll keep to tentative oppose but there's a possibility here. --M ASEM (t) 03:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Now two confirmed dead,, in addition to confusion in the reports of whom rescued. --M ASEM (t) 04:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, considering support if it turns out to be a deadly (+10) incident. Küñall (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment as of a few minutes ago, confirmation that at least 290 people were unaccounted for. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per the missing people part. If it does turn out that they all magically turn up unharmed, then consider this an oppose vote. Either way, the article does need to be cleaned up and expanded a lot before it can go live. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Why are 350 students worth mentioning in the blurb?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Because they were the bulk of the known passangers on the ship (it was a school trip to a nearby island), and this is being highlighted by most press sources. --M ASEM (t) 13:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Children in danger often considered more serious than adults in danger. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait until article can give a reasonable summary of the incident and casualty numbers are approximately known. --LukeSurlt c 11:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support 300+ missing children is a lot IMO. Suggest wikilink South Korea as that's a pretty good article. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't normally link country names and other common terms. See WP:OVERLINK --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Suggest we discuss at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Candidates, to avoid derailing the Korean Ferry discussion here. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb. Jehochman Talk 14:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Post now. Fun fact: If this was an Irish ship, someone would've cried "US biaz" 2 hours ago, leading to its imnmediate posting. – H T  D  14:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Very helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As was this..Lihaas (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support — I don't mind mentioning the students, but I think we should avoid for the time being saying how many died, since it's a developing story. But it should be posted forthwith due to the large number on board. Sca (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Adding a second alt that gives a better geographic link for reference. --M ASEM (t) 15:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you include the headline with "students" why not make it "high-school students" or "schoolchildren" which will be more informative than the blanket term. Bellemora (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Support use of specific location, "children" rather than "students" (also more specific). Avoid bodycount because data may change. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support pending a little more cleanup on the article / sectional breakdown -- Tawker (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Confirmed casualties are low at the moment, but likely to rise. The 2014 Oso mudslide was posted when the confirmed number of dead was relatively low, this situation is no different imo. --Somchai Sun (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support it's true about the Oso mudslide, this should go up soon, especially now eight hours have passed and there are hundreds still "missing". This is an ITN story regardless of the number of deaths now.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 17:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Update? — Blurb says nine dead, 280 missing. Per Reuters, now 14 dead, 282 missing. (As of 1400 UTC, BBC, NYT, Guardian still say nine dead). Sca (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It it probably better to wait until a full account of passangers (alive or dead) has been established, otherwise we will be updating each time the tally changes. We have the "at least" line to imply that the story is developing. --M ASEM (t) 14:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, these numbers are in a high state of flux, let's just go with "at least" and be a little conservative, early reports were 100% wrong, so nothing to suggest that these won't be equally dubious. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's why I suggested yesterday that we leave the number of dead out for the time being. However, the blurb as posted is, predictably, now outdated. Of course, we could lapse into an extended series of fatality updates, but I still think a blurb without fatalities would be better until this episode comes to fruition. Sca (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "At least 4" is not wrong nor outdated. This is SOP for how to handle developing news stories at ITN, as to use lower-bounds so that we don't have to stay up to the minute. A user looking for information on the ferry incident will likely be aware to click through to the article to learn more and find the more updated numbers here. And when there are known fatalities, injuries, or missing persons with a accident, not providing the number that are known looks very weird. "with a number dead and missing" reads wrong. --M ASEM  (t) 15:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It may be SOP at ITN, but that doesn't make it optimal for readers. (True, "at least" is widely used; nevertheless, it's a sort of weasel word phrase.) And BTW, at 1600 UTC the AP said 20 dead. Sca (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Remember, ITN is not a news ticker, it is to highlight articles with stories that are in the news. As long as we're not presenting factually wrong info (and 20 is "at least 4" here, so we're good), we're fine. I do believe that we have had issues in the past when a story blurb was edited "on the spot" with some disastrous effects, hence why we wait and check on updates, and particularly in this story where the initial reports were "oh, the boat tipped but people were able to get out" and now have become much more disastrous, it's better to get all assured information. --M ASEM (t) 16:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 20 ≠ 4 — Sca (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. "20" is "at least 4". I would be agreeing if we were off by a huge magnitude (if that was 200 dead, not just 20), but the difference between 20 and 4 is still small to not be a big issue. --M ASEM (t) 16:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, not missing the pt. — "at least four" was technically true. I'm just saying that, from the pt. of view of readers, I don't think it was accurate info.
 * I see we're now updated to "at least 14." I suspect such incremental increases could go on for days. Sca (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 25 now. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Bump? Should we bump this up the page? It's fallen off the bottom of our list but it's still very much a current news story in the media - e.g. the rescue/salvage (and 8 sub-articles and videos) is top story on the BBC News website this evening. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say all the items on the template currently are very much still in the news, so I'm not sure what you would bump as "less fresh" --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Can we take up more space / bullet points or is the amount of space assigned to each section of the Main Page a matter of precarious wikipolitics? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ITN is the section that is easiest to change the size of on the fly to balance the right- and left-hand columns on the mainpage, so we usually have to adjust to what others are doing. Part of the problem is DYK went from 7 to 6 hooks per update recently due to lack of available hooks (but mostly we've just had a lot of news).  Maybe we could convince OTD to take up a bit less space since DYK is shorter now.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Update: — "Body count reaches 113." AP says 121. Sca (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Sir Owen Woodhouse

 * Oppose I'm not really seeing anything here beyond importance in New Zealand, and the second criteria mentions them being widely-known, which I am not seeing for the late Sir Woodhouse beyond the island of New Zealand. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC) Support Per nominator. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * From the top of the page - "Please do not ... complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." GoldenRing (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)#
 * New Zealand has more than one island. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My fault, as I knew that already but forgot about it. Also, I have struck my vote after reading the non-attack support votes. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What did you forget? That New Zealand has more than one island, or that nominations referring to only a single country are fine? HiLo48 (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Except for U.S. noms, which as we know, constitute systemic bias.128.227.239.198 (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Stop crying special treatment. It doesn't exist and you know it: You have editors acting out of bad faith all the time here because of so-called "country specific systemic biases". It's all complete crap and needs to stop. --Somchai Sun (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Per nom - seems a very significant figure in NZ society. GoldenRing (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Reading the article, he does seem to meet DC2, given his honors and recognition he has gotten after his death. This seems similar to the Harradine nom we just posted.  Article seems to me to be cited if a tad short, but I don't think it's too short for posting. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support If parliament interrupting its proceedings is indeed unusual then that seems to establish him as being of national importance. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support To balance the idiotic post from Kevin Rutherford above. HiLo48 (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support In response to an oppose above, DC#2 says widely regarded  not widely known.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - the paragraph on the Commission on Accident Compensation is unreferenced. Since that is a big part of his legacy (per nom), it definitely needs referenced.  A few other items also need referenced.  Support on merits ocne article is improved. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm working on it, but note that the biography section is currently a copyvio of . Isa (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I'd posted this seconds before this and reverted. Stephen 23:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed, hopefully. Isa (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice work. Posted. Do I need to reset the time for an RD? Meh, it's only semi-protected, so I'm sure someone else can see to it if need be. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Some admins reset the timer for RDs, some don't. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks to everyone who helped! Neljack (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Transgender new legal status in India

 * Support A highly significant decision indeed. Given the population of India, it should affected quite a lot of people. Neljack (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - I'm correct in thinking this is a global first? Also, would it be better to link to hijra? Fgf10 (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * They're not the first nation to do it but they're among the first. A additional link to hijra would indeed be an excellent idea. It's B-class but has warning banners so might need a bit of work. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support With India's population and cultural history, this is a groundbreaking and monumental decision. AgneCheese/Wine 14:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * oppose per Balaenoptera musculus. its not a famous firstLihaas (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For a country of India's size and global significance with 1 billion+ people, nearly everything they do is a famous first. And I say this as an American. AgneCheese/Wine 15:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

We have (minimal) updates to Transgender - more updating is needed - but do we want to go with Transgender as the main article or would it be better to choose Hijra (South Asia), Legal aspects of transsexualism, Third gender or even Supreme Court of India? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - One of the largest countries on Earth legally recognizes transgenders as a third gender? A country which has recently banned homosexuality? Significant. Important. Post. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support For a country like India with its long and complex history with gender politics, of course it's notable... doktorb wordsdeeds 15:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Quetsion - where is the update? I am having trouble finidng it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Important decision that has global implications. However I share the question above as to exactly what article has been updated to reflect this for a link on the main page?  I do see a 1 sentence update at Transgender.  Do we have a legal-type article summarising the supreme court case (similar to some other countries court cases?)  CaptRik (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As to acknowledge, more updating is necessary. An article on the case would be ideal, but Hijra is also a reasonable target.  The main transgender article is probably not ideal for a significant update. As it needs to cover the entire world, there should be minimal detail about any one situation (althoguh more than 1 sentence would be OK). --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Case details are now at Supreme Court of India. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose because there is just a one-line update ("In April 2014, the Supreme Court of India declared transgender to be the 'third gender' in Indian law.") in the transgender article and no updates in the other articles. Definitely important, but that's not reflected on Wikipedia. Mvblair (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - important decision that needs recognition on ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Definitely of great significance given India's population size and culture. Funcrunch (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Despite what reliable sources in the West say, hijra are not transgender. I propose this alternative - "Hijra (often called transgender) recognised as 'third gender' by Supreme Court, India" Yes this is good news but third gender is not transgender.   Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Judge's ruling specifically says "transgender", Hindustan Times says "transgender", Times of India says "transgender". Would "Transgender (including some Hijra)" be accurate? Or should we omit Hijra, after all? 'Third gender' in new Indian law may not mean have exactly the same definition as our article Third gender, in which case perhaps we should not wikilink it. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Reading the actual ruling itself, it specifically says "Hirajas" as well as transgender. Wording is "Tripathy says that non-recognition of the identity of Hijras, a TG [transgender] community, as a third gender, denies them the right of equality before the law ..." I don't have a secondary source on this yet, primary source is . Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am saying that the reliable sources are incorrect. It is difficult to explain, but to say transgender is to assume that there are two genders and that they can be mixed. The concept of hijra is third gender. Western countries do not even have a concept of third gender, so they just say transgender. I know the Indian papers also say transgender because of Western influence. The rights are going to hijra or third gender people. I advocate for use of the term hijra, which is correct. Third gender is also correct. Practically all transgender people in the Western world wish to pass as one gender or the other; hijra are not as deeply interested in this and have different cultural desires. It would be most respectful to use the local term, "hijra", which cannot be translated to English.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There are people in India who are great supporters of rights for hijras and in opposition to rights for transgender or gay people, and see nothing odd about this. That would be one way to explain the distinction.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting. How do you think we should phrase our blurb? (You've already made a perfectly good suggestion above, my question is redundant). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There are growing numbers of people in the West who identify outside of the gender binary; genderqueer, agender, etc. Some of these people identify as transgender, some don't. Regardless, the fact is that the India Supreme Court decision itself specifically includes the term transgender, even if that is due to Western influence as you claim. For that reason I believe the Transgender article is indeed relevant to this ruling, as are the articles on Third gender and Hijra (South Asia). Funcrunch (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The ruling goes into a lot of detail on this issue - more than we can possibly capture in a blurb. The key ruling is para 129, which gives a section (129.1) for "Hijras, Eunuchs" and a section (129.2) for "Transgender persons". So the judge seems to treat them as separate categories of person which are both affected by this ruling. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think everyone here understands my position.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  18:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose as of now Reading the BBC article this seems to have nothing to do with recognizing or legalizing Hijra (unsure of plural term), but with declaring them a protected class with set asides. How is the like legalizing or criminalizing homosexuality?  It seems to be more like saying you can't discriminate against old people, or the fact that US federal job contracts give preference to bids by black owned businesses. μηδείς (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're totally right, it's just like saying you can't discriminate on grounds of age or race. Previously in India you could legally discriminate on 'third sex' grounds - the court has now declared such discrimination illegal - that's the 'legal recognition'. I.e. people of third gender have been 'recognised' as a legally protected group. It's not that they were illegal before, it's that they're now defined as a protected minority, and that they no longer have to declare themselves to be either male or female on official paperwork (e.g. passport). That's my understanding at least. You're also right that it's not the same as legalising or criminalising homosexuality - that's just a related topic. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Posted an active voice version of the Alt blurb as μηδείς was commenting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, rephrase is perfection itself. . Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Query I thought this happened weeks ago? All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 07:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC).


 * This particular decision is new, dated April 15. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * According to the article hijra and transgender are interchangeable for the broad stroke of the ruling. If hijra are singled out in the headline then eunuchs should be too as they are mentioned side by side in the specific clause. Regardless, if hijra is left in it should be lowercased as it is a common noun describing a class of people rather than a proper noun. Bellemora (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I made hijra lower case. The "hijra and transgender" phrasing was chosen based on this disscussion, so I am hesitant to change it without more input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Request. Could we maybe change "individuals" ---> "people"? Formerip (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Request We are indeed talking about individuals, not a people. One can't interchange, for example, the French people and French individuals and mean the same thing. Individuals is the proper word here. μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Medeis, you're just plain wrong here, because there is no definite article in the phrase. "French people" means the same thing as "French individuals", it's just that it is more usual. Formerip (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And nooo..., but you are all sorts of wrong, Former, lol. The American people elected Obama.  The American individuals didn't. μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's worth changing. Any formulation is going to sound awkward.  The basic problem is that the third gender doesn't have a collective noun in English - we have 'men', 'women' and 'transgender individuals' or 'transgender people' or 'transgender persons.'  None of them flow well.  GoldenRing (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] April 2014 lunar eclipse

 * Support Notable event, good article. No reason why we can't think ahead. Suggest amend blurb to "Total lunar eclipse visible from western hemisphere" (and wait to post it until it is visible) Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support — Near-global interest, but we'd better be quick about this. Sca (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, and as sca says we should post this asap as you want Wikipedia readers to see this. Count Iblis (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Should really be a 3 day header though. The day before, the day and the day after...Seems inappropriate to have it up too long. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To those advocating a quick post: what d you suggets as a blurb? The current suggestion certainly shuldn't be used before the eclipse starts. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Good article, relevant. CaptRik (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support decent article, globally relevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support no brainer. --Somchai Sun (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Now this is the sort of thing worthy of being nominated.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb (proposed) more informative and prose. 70.26.172.189 (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Timing comment - I assume we are waiting until the eclipse starts to post since most have not advocated for an earlier posting. I agree with that decision since it would be unprecendented (asaik) to post somethign ahead of time on ITN. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well unless anyone vehemently disagrees, I'm all for breaking precedent, and posting a blurb with 'will occur' today, changing to 'occurred' this evening. Stephen 22:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Posting after the fact would be silly in this case. A few hours or so before it starts will not hurt ITN's reputation for an event that people can prepare to see for themselves. --M ASEM (t) 23:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I check a bunch of the previous eclipses. It doesn't look like any of them were posted ahead of time.  I would say post as it starts in present tense.  That said, if anyone feels strongly about posting sooner, go for it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I wrote the article so someone else should make the call. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it another "timing" issue is that we are discussing this under the April 14 heading, but it will be April 15 (UTC) when it occurs? HiLo48 (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, it will be April 15 (UTC) in eight minutes time, and our system should automatically generate the new date header. Maybe I'll just move the whole conversation then. HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Please post this now, so readers will see this before they wake up tomorrow. μηδείς (talk) 8:19 pm, Today (UTC−4)
 * Posted There seems to be no great objection to posting early. Stephen 01:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Belated early posting support - It's nice to see that something that is ITN is posted without the unreasonable objections of timing. This eclipse was in the news leading up to its occurrence, and eclipses are predicted to the day and time of day for the next century and beyond. These events are best informed ahead of time, as proactive reporting as opposed to reactive reporting that is required of unexpected events that generally constitute ITN. I'll note that we are now in one of the eight lunar eclipse tetrads of this century: This will occur three more times, each six months apart, over the next 18 months. Perhaps this should be ITN/R, and if so, the question is whether or not to set a new precedent of posting them 24-48 hours before the event. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  15:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But total penumbral eclipse says only 7 times. Unless one happens in the 2100s part of the 21st century? The ~6 century cycle averages more like 3. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] NSA Stories take Pulitzer Prize
Providing an alt blurb - there are many Pulitizers named but clearly the WaPost/Guardian for the NSA matters are the headlines here. --M ASEM (t) 23:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Source? HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just added those. --M ASEM (t) 23:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have completed the framework of the article. I have sources of all awards and will also add to nom now. Thank you. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the alt blurb masem, obviously use which ever is most apt. The headlines are about the NSA thing, but the exhaustive list is also important. I have switched the NYTimes source for Pulitzer as its the direct page, on a primary source, and the BBC one references the NSA thing as the headline. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Opposed so long as Snowden is pictured, support otherwise. μηδείς (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree the image of Snowden is not a critical element here. --M ASEM (t) 00:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nominate a more appropriate image and explain why. The headline is the NSA story, which came from Snowden IIRC. Open to argument. Chicago tribune is already using this image in its google header. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) Nothing against Snowden actually, but if I never see his or Miley Cyrus's mugs again... And we have free images of Pultzer himself (which I support) and the Prize.  If you weren't so beligernet, 77, I'd already have posted this before your nannying. μηδείς (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Gen pulitzer.jpg - Theres this of course. I have no idea what your personal issue is μηδείς, but you are deeming me belligerent, while clearly instigating s--- without provocation. If you enjoy conflict resolution by all means continue. Im here to work on this, not to play word games with librarians. Many thanks. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If I've learned anything from my experience at ITN, it's this. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * CNN, The Guardian and Fox News are also using the Snowden picture. I dont think personal revulsion of his image is a legit reason to oppose inclusion. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Using Snowden's photo is a coatrack - this is meant to celebrate the various Pulitzer winners, and not the substance of the stories they covered. --M ASEM (t) 00:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You dont really have rationale for that. Everyone is using the picture, even people that are against him. Besides, the article is not leaning on him other to say the stories based on his revelations won the main award. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. And just because "everyone" is using the picture doesn't mean we get to too, we are more neutral than that again because we are not a newspaper, we're an encyclopedia. There is a second level of this story developing, in that some are stating that the fact that these reports got the Pulitzer means that Snowden's actions should be considered far from traitorious, but's that a point of opinion and not an ITN story. --M ASEM (t) 01:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see that a picture of Snowden is a coatrack or biased. It is related to the story. The relevant questions are whether it is sufficiently closely related to the story and whether there is a more appropriate image to use. Neljack (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Snowden has zero to do with the ITN/C story : that the Pulitzer committee awarded the WATimes and Guarding for their reporting excellence. The story that they reported on, the NSA survillence stuff based on Snowden's leaks, is a separate topic and giving that any more weight than just the topic of the news reporting (such as by using the picture of Snowden) is coatracking. --M ASEM (t) 17:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Snowden picture; he is not the story. Support listing the Pulitzer winners in principle(wondering if it should be ITNR) as a notable and widely covered award in journalism. 331dot (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * CNN, The Guardian and Fox News are also using the Snowden picture. I dont think personal revulsion of his image is a legit reason to oppose inclusion. The headline leads back to Snowden. The article itself will have no picture of snowden and will only have mention of the NSA series of stories in the description. The article is up now in frame work form, and has no great references to snowden. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My personal views on Snowden are irrelevant; I oppose using his image because he is not the story; the winners of the Prize are. If the article has no picture of him, neither should an ITN entry. 331dot (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You would prefer to concentrate on the guardian and the washington post? Snowden is synonymous with the series of stories that won the prize. Thats why everyone is using his image. Seems like irrational consensus. The headline concerns snowden, whilst obviously the exhaustive article concerns the prize winners in total. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've explained my position; explaining it again isn't going to help anyone. I would submit the same goes for you. 331dot (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly just reflecting the coverage im seeing out there. It doesnt matter what we think. The Pulitzer main prize went to the scoops concerning his revelations. That tacitly sponsored a headline using his image, which is why everyones using it. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * We don't use pics only tangentially related to the story. By insisting we should use such a picture you are torpedoing the nomination. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The NSA stories won the main prize. Right now a list of news media leading with snowdens picture goes - CNN, Fox News, ABC, Al Jazeera, Reteurs. Thats 3 of the american big 4 and 2 of the global 3. MSNBC are going "Will papers win Pulitzer for Snowden stories?" and the BBC have the Guardian guy. Article is essentially ready to go. Seems like irrational consensus. Will forward to [] in admin for adjudication. If you guys are right, then fair enough, my bad. If not, then I guess well find out the hard way. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You can ask anyone you wish to weigh in, but no admin or any user has the final authority to "adjudicate" anything here; decisions are made by consensus. You not liking the consensus doesn't mean it is irrational. 331dot (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Every online news story has some picture attached to it no matter how vaguely related. That is hardly a reason for us to do likewise - we are not a newspaper and are not trying to draw reads to boost our ad rates. Its pretty clear no one wants the Snowden pic, but by all means keep arguing the point so no one can debate what is really important - the merits of the story. Also we don't work on being "right" we work on consensus.--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Theyve mostly chosen to lead with his picture, because the series featuring his revelations won the main prize. And an irrational consensus is an irrational consensus. There are many reason why these occur, but its not my issue. A nomination has been made, and if the picture thing is an irrational consensus for whatever reason, then it is. If its a legit one under the rules of ITN, then it is. You arent about to push me into changing the picture everyone is using, because of an unproven, unjustified revulsion against snowden for irrational reasons by 3 men and a dog, on a sub section of a NFP site. The media consensus is to use that picture as it logically follows the winner of the main prize. Im not bothered either way. I have no investment here. You guys are acting on your names. Im just reflecting the coverage is see on this from all major american and world media outlets. Thank you. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support, and here is a picture of the winners. Count Iblis (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there some reason you have falsely described to us what that url links to, User:Count Iblis? μηδείς (talk) 03:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support.  While this doesn't need a picture, if we're going to use a picture, surely we should use a pic of a winner, not the subject:   Either File:Glenn greenwald portrait transparent.png or File:Laura Poitras 2014.jpg would be good.Randomcommentor (talk) 02:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No real reason to single out the awards for the NSA leaks (aside from an anti-NSA sentiment, which is problematic for POV reasons).   Calidum   02:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The Pulitzer Prize committee is the one that singled them out for the main prize, not us.  "This is the first time the main prize has been shared by two news organisations since 1990, when the medal was awarded to both the Washington Daily News and The Philadelphia Inquirer."  Randomcommentor (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We also haven't posted these awards in past years. That's part of why I'm concerned people only want this on the front page because of their feelings on the NSA.  Calidum   01:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. The prizes are significant and were widely covered in Latin American media outlets (from what I saw in the afternoon). ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 03:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support modified Alt blurb mentioning WaPo, Guardian and the NSA leak but there is little need to mention Snowden and even far less of a need to picture. If we need a picture, the prize itself will do nicely. I would also support including the Pulitzers on ITN/R. AgneCheese/Wine 03:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nominated for ITN/R --Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support main blurb. The Pulitzer is a top-level award with a storied history, and the articles for both the Prize itself and for the winners are encyclopedic.  People interested in who won can click on the article.  There's no reason to make the blurb as long as it is in the alt blurb.  I am agnostic on the picture.  Have ITN candidates gotten a lot more chatty or am I imagining this?84.250.106.213 (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Seal of the United States National Security Agency.svg Nrol-39.jpg Gen pulitzer.jpg Global significance of underlying NSA news story, Pulitzer is world's leading journalism prize, award of Pulitzer to these journalists gives moral legitimacy to Snowden's leak and their reporting of it. Likely widespread far-reaching implications for future policy and law worldwide. IMO the most important Pulitzer since the Pentagon Papers. Snowden photo is fine with me, an alternative would be likewise fine. As the underlying story is about the NSA, how about using the NSA logo (fair use) or (for something a bit more fun) the NROL-39 'Giant Squid' mission patch ? Or the Pulitzer Prize itself. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no change in the underlying Snowden story as a result of the reporters getting the Pulitzer. It is coatracking to say that that story is much more important as the ITN item. As I mentioned above, there is a second thread from the Pulitzer win that begs the question if Snowden being tagged a traitor is invalidated by the story, but that's more a talking-heads discussion and not any strong action that is really a news story. It's clear that the Snowden story is the most important Pultizer given this year and thus the reason to highlight it compared to any other Pultizer awarded. --M ASEM (t) 14:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Support - industry prize of high repute, story of great importance. Snowden helped create the story, so his picture isn't somehow an obscure lap doktorb wordsdeeds 11:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Short version of the blurb please. Formerip (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support but the blurb needs to say "Pulitzer Prize for Public Service". There are multiple Pulitzer Prizes, and I was left mystified as to what the "main prize" is. It's not explained in the article. Frankly the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction is the Pulitzer that I think of first. Neljack (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong support — In some ways this highly controversial episode was the top story of 2013.
 * Suggested 2nd Alt. Blurb: "The Washington Post and The Guardian win the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, for coverage of the NSA surveillance disclosures by Edward Snowden."
 * Illustration: The proffered pic. of Snowden has been seen so many times that it's a bromide. (The Guardian uses a different but similar pic. of Snowden, while WX Post uses a newsroom shot of its reporters.) Of the three logos suggested above, only the Pulitzer medal is really apropos, though it's not visually intriguing. Suggest we go with either the medal or no illustration. Sca (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Footnote: Guardian quotes Snowden comments on award, including: "This decision reminds us that what no individual conscience can change, a free press can." Shades of Watergate... Sca (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Statue of Joseph Pulitzer (Fort Jay, New York).jpg Alternative Image I've just uploaded to wikimedia a possible alternative image, it's a statue of Joseph Pulitzer, license cc-by-sa, photo credit Pete Toscano. If we use it then we probably want to crop it a bit, and we will need to credit it which will take up a bit of space. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Balaenoptera musculus is to be complimented on resourcefulness, but I'm afraid no image or likeness of Joseph Pulitzer would be recognizable without a cutline (caption), which ITN doesn't really afford. Sca (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There might be a problem with that image. US does not have freedom of panorama so a photograph of a statue located in a public place and still under copyright is a non-free derivative work. I cannot find when that statue was installed or made, but given that 1) it was likely made after Pulitzer's death (in the 1910s) and 2) the creator (who I don't know) likely lived past 1924 (which 90+life would made it expire), this image is more likely non-free and can't be used. --M ASEM (t) 17:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Commons affirms the statue is still under copyright, so this can't be free. --M ASEM (t) 01:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - the Pulizer article is very much not ready for mainpage posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Updated and marked ready. I have added some text to the Pulitzer article and Isanae fixed the formatting to match previous years.  There is no need to use any picture as a newer item already has one.--ThaddeusB (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seriously, someone needs to make a few templates for that, it wasn't much fun :) Isanae (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 04:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment — Decidedly odd that the posted blurb doesn't say, "by Edward Snowden." Is there a personal antipathy to Snowden at play here? To be sure, he's a controversial figure, and as mentioned above I agree with not running his mug, but this whole story never would have happened without him — he played the central role. What's up? Sca (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Abuja twin bombings

 * Seems to be a notable attack. Is this related to the other Nigeria incident nominated below? 331dot (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Smfh. Its like yesterday all over again...Is it safe to say the story blew up in nigeria?77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please be careful with your language. GoldenRing (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * BBC says it might be the same group but they don't have a strong affirmation yet. However, this is outside their current region of activity so if it was them, this is an unusual incident. --M ASEM (t) 14:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The president of nigeria just said it was boko haram. As you guys have repeatedly told me my nominee was about an ongoing conflict, may I direct you to my "Boko Haram Attacks" Nominee, also from today, 2 below. Thank you.
 * Strong support. Obviously. Check out the story 2 nominees below RM. This is in a different part of the country, but one may assume a connection is not improbable. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I could support a general blurb about this group conducting a series of attacks like the one I propose above(though I'm not set on the wording or linking) if there are sufficient updates. 331dot (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Frankly I dont care who does this story. Combine nominees or close one of them down. This group has killed "135 people" and gone on to kill "74" more, hours later. Lets get an article up about this months attacks, before the world finds a different free format to get their information from. Thank you. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want an immediate posting, Wikinews is thataway-- if you want a decent article to highlight and a proper blurb to match, this will get done in time. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I want someone to get their tie out of the shredder and lets go to work. Many Thanks. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Instead of demanding that others do work that you want done, why not just do it? Thanks 331dot (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Because you are confusing the issue, minimising the issue and obfuscating the relevance of the issue.

Boko Haram have killed 135 people - hours ago. Now they have killed 71 more.

And you want to nominate as relevant because CNN are now covering it and they used a bomb this time.

Whats notable is not that CNN are covering it and they used a bomb. Whats notable is this terrorist group is escalating attacks and launching an assault on the state of nigeria, and they have been in the process of doing so for some time now, while you marvel over a bomb.

Again BBC, AJZ, and Reuters have had this story already for hours. I have been telling you ad infinitum to consider your position, and instead, once again, you have waited for the american networks and a shinny bomb to marvel at. They already done killed 135 people hours ago, as you will see in the nominee right below this one. Who cares if its by bomb or by bullet.

The story is the group are intensifying attacks on the state of nigeria, and you shouldnt need an IP editor to tell you that. Once again, many thanks. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * PS - I actually have s--- to do today. I will leave this one with you guys and see what you come up with. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Im repeatedly getting told killing 135 people isnt notable because theres a lack of media interest and its an ongoing conflict. Even though the government is making statements and BBC, AJZ and Reauters are all over it. Now a bomb goes off and American media is on it, and its a separate nom, even though its just another attack by this group that already killed 135 people hours ago. Nevertheless I will happily contribute to the story, while you claim the nomination, of the same group, in the same spate of attack, that I highlighted 2 nominees down. Many thanks. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I nominated a story no one was interested in, about this group killing 135 people hours ago, and then on the same day, you are nominating a the same basic chain of events because a bomb went off and the alphabets are all over it. Its a little cheap, all due respect RM.
 * Would reasonably support a story about the spat of violence over the last few days (I think there's three separate incidents now? ) with Boko Haram highlighted as the story, but this needs to be updated to add these. --M ASEM (t) 14:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion "Boko Haram caused bus station explosion, says Nigerian President Jonathan" Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Any way this story goes, we are walking down a path that leads to the larger context of recent attacks. Thats where this story goes. The only way it doesnt go there, is if Boko Haram didnt do it, and as we are dealing with terrorists, confirmation through claimed or proven responsibility is an extremely difficult thing. We either get a confession from BH or we await some kind of trial? We need to establish precedence and link the recent attacks and bomb, which is inexorably part of them. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * already mentioned that.77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I meant, I suggest that we rephrase the blurb to the text that I've put in quotes. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The salient point is that the president, like everyone else in nigeria is placing this attack, not as some kind of anomaly, but into the wider context of the Boko Haram attacks, that as Masem rightly states, have been going on for days now. The presidents quotes are on the article, because i put them there, and he is quite clear in his rhetoric.

In fact he categorically places the attacks into the greater narrative of boko harams spate of violence "We have lost quite a number. We condole with our country men and women. The issue of Boko Haram is quite an ugly history within this period of our own development. Government is doing everything to make sure that we move our country forward. But these are the unnecessary distractions that are pushing us backward. But we will get over it”, he said.". But who ever is dealing with the article has cut short the presidents quote, unjustifiably for what reason?? Have re edited it in, as the full presidents quote is obviously more important than trying to alter the story to fit the nomination or the obsession that this bomb is some kind of special event, divorced from the 135 people they just killed hours ago. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose opinion based blurb. State facts only. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 16:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed. We shouldn't ascribe it to BH unless/until we have confirmation from a reliable source that it was them. In the meantime we can either
 * say BH are 'suspected' (or 'accused', 'blamed', etc), or
 * we can report that the president says it was BH, or
 * we can not mention BH at all.
 * Personally I prefer option 2, because it allows us to put this attack in the context of the wider/ongoing BH attacks without yet ascribing (in Wikipedia's voice) responsibility for this latest attack. Also option 1 is a bit weasel-wordy (IMO) - if they're accused then we should say who accuses them. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

^ Ok I added - Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan visited the scene of the blast, where he appeared to blame Boko Haram for the explosion, saying "We have lost quite a number. We condole with our country men and women. The issue of Boko Haram is quite an ugly history within this period of our own development. Government is doing everything to make sure that we move our country forward. But these are the unnecessary distractions that are pushing us backward. But we will get over it”, he said.".[7]

The attack comes a day after Nigerian senator Ahmed Zanna claimed the group had killed 135 civilians in north east Nigeria in the week preceding the blast. [8]

'''Hows that? You draw them into it, through sourced quotes from BBC and two government leaders. '''77.101.41.108 (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Strongly support the alternative blurb. In any other conflict, we are updating information on attacks in this situation. The fact we slept on this groups activities, doesnt justify treating the bomb as an anomaly now that we have woken up to them. The president and the people of nigeria are experiencing this as the latest in a very recent escalation of attacks. This is reflected in their quotes and there is no point attempting to massage this basic fact out of article coverage. Yes the conflict is protracted, but the intensification and escalation in attacks is a few days/hours old. Thats my case. The alternative is we keep running into the bigger picture, while attempting to make this all about the bomb. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Dont address me and censor me. You have shown no moral position to chasten anyone. As for being productive, Ive researched this story extensively and have contributed half the article. I was advocating for its inclusion hours before you posted your nomination. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * IP77, please, please, please stop obfuscating the nominations with walls of text and personal commentary. That's not what this is about.  I don't care for your opinion or accusations of being "cheap", I just want to get on with suitable nominations and sensible discussion.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest you stop addressing me in disparaging tone and then censoring the reply. You essentially stole my nomination from 2 down, posted on the same day, and then hid behind consensus to fashion your own article. Did you not think it worth reading that there was a nomination only 2 spaces below the one you posted?
 * Different events, conflated by you. Please stop it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Its the same spate of attacks as corroborated by the president of nigeria, and reported in BBC, AJZ, Reuters, and now the american networks.Please stop appealing to moderation, when you dont have the common courtesy to give credit to contributors or check other peoples entries before posting. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well congratulations to you for wrecking a process that, while a little wonky, used to work. You have the floor.  I have no energy to deal with editors like you.  Goodbye.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * all dude respect. I found a story no one here wanted, because there was little interest from the American networks. There was ample evidence of interest from BBC, AJZ, and Reuters. Then as part of this spate of attacks, that no one was interested in, a bomb goes of 1 The American networks report 2 You jump in with a duplicate nomination focused on the bomb and ignoring the fact they just killed 135 people, and any interpretation or article about the bomb, inexorably goes back to the larger context of the boko haram terrorist attacks, that my nomination focused on. And now you have consensus for your nomination, because a bomb went off! I wont be your scapegoat. You did this. You want to appeal to moderation and act like ive done ill, but I contributed half your article and was the only person here advocating a nomination about this group, hours ago, when no one else was interested. You want me out of your nomination. fine. Go ahead with it, and kindly blame someone else as the president of nigeria names the group and draws the bombings into the exact same spate of attacks my own nomination was focused on. Go ahead and take the nomination. It is far easier to attack an unknown than it is to clean your own name. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It has been pointed out several times that WP's "In the News" is not to simply replicate stories that are headlines in the newspaper. We have a way to highlight news stories that are subjects of notable articles, and your postings have been trying to subvert that process after you've been told that there's a way we do things here. As WPians, the last thing we're here to do is correct political injustice in the world, we're trying to build an encyclopedia. --M ASEM (t) 19:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're not in a position to tell anyone anything masem. The format is the guide, not you. Perhaps you would like to reacquaint yourself with it, before making spurious remarks and accusations...The In the news (ITN) section on the main page serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest. ITN supports the central purpose of Wikipedia—making a great encyclopedia. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support given the scale of the casualties. Neljack (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - major terrorist attack. Article needs more work though. -Zanhe (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've worked on the article, I believe it meets the minimum standard required for inclusion on ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * obvious support on scale, article meets mimimum requirements too.Lihaas (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support — Random mass murder. Sca (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 17:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Brian Harradine

 * Weak support. The article seems kind of slim(though I don't feel inappropriately so) for someone with the influence HiLo describes, but I do think "longest serving Independent politician" meets DC2. No tags in article. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support RD A very significant figure in Australian politics over several decades. I'm surprised that the article is so slim, but then his independence immediately precluded him from high office and I don't think he's had any major scandal attached to him.  GoldenRing (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * well it is in th einterest of globalizing to put this tchap on here and I support, we also need more such people from the non-English worlsd like east timor or sometingLihaas (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support for RD seems notable and prominent enough in the field of Australian politics. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - referencing is so-so. I would either expect a longer article or a better referenced one.  (I.E. I can sometimes overlook a few misisng citations, but when there is only 3 paragraphs total it is not too much to ask for everything to be referenced.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, what? A senator, not the top of his field. His article is slim suggesting lack of impact and lack of interest. His article gets only 16 page views a day. When long-serving US Senator Harry F. Byrd, Jr. died last year he was not nominated. There have been presidents of some nations who didn't make it on RD. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't any ordinary senator; the longest serving independent senator in Australian history. That isn't easy to do in a parliamentary system where those not in political parties can normally do little. If the field is Australian politics, this would seem to meet DC2. While I think the nominator often takes the issue too far, there is also a legitimate systemic bias issue here.  We did post Daniel Inouye in December of 2012. Page views are not the be-all-end-all.  331dot (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But not the longest serving. Just because he was an Independent (which is somewhat of a thing in Australian politics) doesn't mean anything. And the very notion that ITN doesn't post Australian material is silly. If Olivia Newton-John were to die tomorrow, there would be no systemic bias against posting. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It means everything, but I guess we will just have to disagree there. I don't think the idea of systemic bias is "silly"; can you point out the last Australian story posted? 331dot (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support for RD as 331dot suggests, an unusual notability from being an independent senator for such a period. As for the hyperbole from Abductive, I too would be interested in the last (non-cricket) Australian story posted!  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hyperbole? I state simple facts: 16 page views a day, vs 600 a day for Daniel Inouye (who I would not and did not vote for ITN). Assertions of BIAS against Australia need to be backed up by failed nominations, not the length of time since something happened there. Here are some recent successful Australia-related noms election results, government split, Aboriginal artist and one failed: Governor-General which failed because just a figurehead and longstanding consensus against such posting. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keith Dunstan wasn't posted. Olivia Newton-John is an appalling example of who WOULD be posted. Why should an Australian have to be famous in America to be posted? Systemic bias anyone? HiLo48 (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with entertainers? Are they not serious enough? Look, you think a lady who sang songs and appeared in movies is bad? Talk about BIAS! Politicians are magically better subjects for In The News? People who matter should be posted. An obscure journalist? Please. A long out of office politician? Please. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Bias? LOL. I think Olivia Newton-John is terrific. But why should an Australian have to be famous in America to be posted? And Keith Dunstan was definitely NOT an obscure journalist. For several decades he was the best known writer at Australia's biggest selling daily newspaper. But I'll admit he never made it big in Hollywood, which seems to be an essential criterion for Abductive to approve a posting. HiLo48 (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Real strawman, dude, real strawman. First you call her appalling, then terrific. Then you say my criterion is Hollywood, when it is, in fact, that the person needs to meet the criteria for RD, which is "top of their field", not effing longevity. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Page views shouldn't be the top most consideration here. Part of the purpose of ITN is to highlight articles to get people to read them. Also, we do not know how many worthy articles could get nominated that don't because users fear the systemic bias.  I'm not sure I would consider September "recent" but I do appreciate you checking.  I agree 100% that not posting this is a systemic bias issue. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I just demonstrated that there is no bias. Do you seriously think that people here have it in for Aussies? Abductive  (reasoning) 20:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, not people. Only you. And it's not all Australians you have it in for. It's only those who haven't made it big in Hollywood. Would you have supported posting Don Bradman's death? HiLo48 (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was unaware that "page views" suddenly became part of the ITN/C criteria. Fantastic new update, news to me, sounds like hype, but we should never believe that.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * One does not have to "have it in for Aussies" to still be engaging in systemic bias. That's why it's called systemic. 331dot (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support While ordinarily I would agree that the death of a senator from old age is not really ITN-worthy (especially since there are often heads of state who are not featured), but being the longest serving independent senator is noteworthy just as Robert Byrd being the longest serving US Senator was noted. Byrd was not only featured when he passed in June 2010, but he also got a picture slot. AgneCheese/Wine 20:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To my shame its seems I supported posting Byrd. The arguments then against posting him sound like mine now, which means I have grown to a more hardline view of non-executive politicians. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support but the article could still do with a few more citations and a bit more material on his political impact/achievements. I'll have a look at what I can do. Neljack (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please do. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Good to see the article up there now. Neljack (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Posted -- Jayron  32  12:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Nigeria : Boko Haram attacks

 * Oppose Per BBC, 1500 have been killed in Boko Haram since the start of the year, so this is nothing new (akin to the continued violence in Syria + Ukraine) --M ASEM (t) 03:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You do realize Boko Haram is the name of the islamist terrorists, not of a place? μηδείς (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * They are attacking Amchaka in Borno Masem77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

'OK WHO IS Messing WITH MY TITLE?' Plz explain why. Too tired to debate this but originally reads "Boko Harem kill scores in Amchaka, Nigeria." If you are going to change title, plz explain why? Thank you kindly. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC) Masem you thought Boko harem was a place. Kindly desist from editing my title, and get someone else to do it, if it infringes. I am using BBC, Al Jareera headlines. The lowest estimate is approaching 70 which is scores. Will seek third party if you continue to vandalise my title. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC) '''Masem that title is lifted direct from BBC. Do not change without third party admin. ''' 77.101.41.108 (talk) 04:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC) 'Thank you masem' - if the titles out of line, by all means seek recourse. I will understand. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please reference BBC source claiming 1500 killed. Has this been covered here, like the Ukraine and Syria conflicts were undoubtedly? I was not aware Nigeria was at war, and there doesnt seem to be much mention of it in articles either. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Right in your source : "At least 1,500 people, half of them civilian, have been killed in the restive north-eastern region this year, according to Amnesty International.". --M ASEM (t) 03:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So source is Amnesty International. Feels like Boko Haram have a license to kill with no wikipedia article and very little media interest. Africa...SMFH77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a WP article on Boko Haram (you've linked it) and there is documented all the known major attacks they've done - this should be added to it, but you can't expect WP to correct media-bias (or lack of coverage) nor world problems. --M ASEM (t) 03:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I do expect it to reflect internationally significant stories. Nigeria is one of africas fastest growing nations and has one of the largest populations on the planet. Africa is a populous region. Killing 100s of africans is an internationally significant thing. I dont expect wikipedia to save the world. Nor do I expect wikipedia to ignore internationally significant stories that affect a great many people, because its easier to reflect western media narratives and interests. BBC, AJZ and Reuters are 3 of the most popular and credible news networks on the planet. Thats more than enough evidence to justify inclusion on merit of sourcing and news reporting. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 04:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a newspaper so no, we are not always going to reflect international headlines. If you want to do that, go to Wikinews. We're trying to focus on encyclopedic articles here, some which will be about certain events, but in this case, this individual event (the attacks today) is not notable but the ongoing conflict is. --M ASEM  (t) 04:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You are meant to be directing readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest. You are meant to be supporting the central purpose of Wikipedia—making a great encyclopedia. Ive demonstrated wide interest by the fact its a massive population, an internationally significant story and its covered by three of the most credible and popular news networks on planet earth. ITN is not InTheNeigbourhood masem. And you are not supporting making wikipedia a great encyclopedia by making it localised and ignorant to the rest of the planet. You dont get the casting vote on if attacks are interesting or not. Thats your opinion. Fair dues. Lets others make their arguments. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 04:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Masem - 13 of those incidents on the Boko Haram article have their own adjoined articles and non of the ones I saw have a body count of 135 civilians. Your argument of "meh africa, wikipedia dont care", doesnt hold water. I just demonstrated precendence for exceptional treatment of individual incidents, and this has the highest ostensible body count on that whole page of incidents. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 04:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But not all of them. And again, we need the article before it can be ITN, this small an update to the Boko Harem article would not be sufficient. --M ASEM (t) 05:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I did explain in the edit summary: these should be short and neutral; "kill scores" is not neutral even if they are a terrorist group. --M ASEM (t) 04:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyone may change the title at any time; Masem is quite correct that it should be short and neutral. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose at this time. Part of an ongoing conflict, so we don't need to post every battle with a death toll(just like Syria, Iraq, Egypt, etc.)  Not yet seeing wide coverage of this, either(BBC, A-J and Reuters are not the whole universe).  As Masem suggested, we are not responsible for what the media reports nor are we a news ticker. It is also difficult to support with no article to evaluate. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it a battle or a terrorist attack? Notable incidents do indeed have their pages in wikipedia in this conflict at least anecdotally the body count here is the highest at a glance on that page. BBC/AJZ/Reuters are indeed not the centre of the universe, it seems the are more like captain kirk mapping that universe while USMI are all about WIMBYism on vulcan (!). :D BBC, Reuters and AJZ demonstrate the story has widespread interest imho. It shoudnt depend on one countries media to legitimise the stories. As fast as you are to tell us we are not a news ticker, or zealous missionary's of "truth", ITN is categorically defined by the directing readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest...and indeed supporting the central purpose of Wikipedia—making a great encyclopedia. All of these things support reflecting stories of worldwide significance, and not just "things that have an american commercial media interest". 77.101.41.108 (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is ITN; posting here does depend on the media legitimizing a story. I don't look at just one country's media. I stand by my views and I will have no further comment on this matter.331dot (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Can I quote you on that? The Worlds Media =/= americas provincial media bubble. Theres a whole world out there, and there is no need to clear a story with 5% of it, in order for it to be widespread, or wide interest or relevant to ITN. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Would support posting an article on the conflict as a whole, with this as the specific news item, if we had a good example of such an article. Our lack of a suitable article on this important topic clearly does reflect our regional bias - although that is not the fault of contributors to this page. An article on the wider conflict is here: Islamist insurgency in Nigeria but it needs to be fleshed out. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Much as I see a slightly different picture, if this massacre was risiding in a different location, wikipedia has actually tracked the conflict quite well, on second glance. New articles can and have been made for specific incidents and the BBC/AJZ/Reuters trio have covered conflict quite well. The story is perhaps lacking western direct "interests", so it follows a lack of WMI. It still has demonstrable widespread interest to wikipedia users world wide. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Another trivial IP nomination.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The last time you said that, a city burned down in chile.

Welcome to Wikipedia You might notice the subject on the top of the main page, under the header "In The News"

Anther pitiful miscalculation by Lugnuts... 77.101.41.108 (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You got lucky. Let's face it, you were overdue.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I wish you would stop saying "the entire city burned down" because that is patently false. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I wish you would stop misquoting someone right next to the actual quote.' #BasicF---Stuff

Indeed the entire city did not burn down. 1000 homes did, 20 people died and the entire city was labelled a disaster zone. When do entire cities burn down? The Great Fire of London didnt burn down the 'entire' city. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't quoting you so much as paraphrasing you; "city burns down" suggests "entire" and not part of a city. 331dot (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Were you paraphrasing me incorrectly in quotation marks, with more words than I originally said? Reuters Heres a helpful handbook, to go with your wikipedia belt. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is my favourite part - Please recite a million times - Quotes are sacrosanct. They must never be altered other than to delete a redundant word or clause, and then only if the deletion does not alter the sense of the quote in any way. Selective use of quotes can be unbalanced. Be sure that quotes you use are representative of what the speaker is saying and that you describe body language (a smile or a wink) that may affect the sense of what is being reported. When quoting an individual always give the context or circumstances of the quote.- Thank you. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not writing an essay, publishing a paper, or being graded. This is a casual conversation where we have a different interpretation of something, which I will continue to do as I see fit, just as you would. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Im pretty sure that latitude falls shy of falsely quoting someone right next to the original quote, by adding in a word you deem appropriate ammunition to attack their position. Just a moment ago you were protesting your right to your position. Kindly stop misrepresenting mine in fabricated quotes right next to the original excerpt you are misrepresenting. Many thanks. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This just in 71 people are killed and 124 injured in twin bomb blasts in Abuja, Nigeria. I see a great career in journalism for you Lugnuts, when you get done being an amateur librarian that just slept on a city getting burned into a disaster zone and a spate of terrorist attacks CNN that killed 100s of people. :D Good one. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That is way out of order. Please go and read WP:CIVIL. GoldenRing (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The guy is going out of his way to be obnoxious and has been wrong now on two big stories, one of which some other dude is essentially taking credit for nominating. Stop sending me wiki directives and learn some manners. Site is quite clear about being polite to people, rather than instigating s---, and then hiding behind a greater knowledge of customs when people respond. Go ask Balaenoptera musculus. This guy is going out of his way to be rude, and to initiate rudeness, without provocation. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems the denizens of WP:ANI took a different view. We are actually trying to help you get on here, and I hoped you'd take my comment in that spirit; antagonizing other editors, however much they might be in the wrong, isn't going to help in a consensus-based project.  I hope you take your block in that spirit, too; it is meant to help educate you in the standards of the community.  Go easy.  GoldenRing (talk) 12:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support — Outrageous! Sca (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Masters

 * Comment - I would expect to see at least two paragraphs of text in the final round section (covering the overall result) such as was done in the 2013 Masters article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Hate golf. Would rather see boxing. Elitist, under watched, over rated, culturally obnoxious, featuring a wonderful over representation of privileged monoculturality vs working class, popular across the world, contested across the world, olympic sport, featuring a diverse array of cultures and peoples. I know its obligatory, but would rather see the boxing, as more people probably gave a s---. Google Trends Google Trends77.101.41.108 (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please do not oppose nominations that are ITN/R. If you have an issue with an event which is ITN/R, then you must propose its removal on the ITN/R page. Andise1 (talk) 05:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to note, Google Trends isn't as far as I know how ITN is decided, also, golf is more popular than boxing according to it]. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  10:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether 77.101.41.108 likes golf or not is irrelevant; this is ITNR. If you don't want golf there, propose its removal at the ITNR discussion page. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well at least we know not to talk about golf in front of them in the future. Always good to know more about your fellow wikipedians! --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well obviously I dont like it, but Im not going to snipe on the article, because I dont like golf. All the best with it editors. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Please... ...put the name of the country in the blurb. Other countries have Masters Tournaments too. Yes, I know the blurb just reflects the name of the article, but that doesn't make it right. Just proves our systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "In golf" ought to make the confusion minimal, unless there are other golf masters that I am unaware of. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The European Tour has 4 or 5 events every year with "Masters" in the title, including tournaments in Portugal and Qatar, and the Omega European Masters, though "The Masters" is fairly well understood to mean Augusta, some European sources call it the US Masters to distinguish it from the European tournament in Switzerland. Courcelles 04:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Same in Australia, which also has its own Masters tournament. The US one, not surprisingly, is called the, yes, you guessed it, the US Masters! Come on, it would do nobody any harm at all to include the name of the country. Fighting this is endorsing our systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 04:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You might be right but you don't need to link to systemic bias every time you type it, especially within a few lines of each other. Instead of beating the systemic bias drum to death you could just point out that "The Masters" could be confused with other tournaments with the name first. I also don't think politely pointing out their reasoning is "fighting this". Not everything is a systemic bias issue, as not everyone is aware of everything in the world. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Precisely. An awful lot are only aware of American things, and NOT aware of our systemic bias}}, and that's part of our [[systemic bias. Linking it helps them learn about it. HiLo48 (talk) 10:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My point is that before beating that drum you have just started by pointing out the possibility of confusion, which is there regardless of systemic bias. You don't need to start the battle with the biggest guns; assume good faith that people aren't out, intentionally or otherwise, to be biased. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support once the Masters article is beefed up a little bit. Also agree that it would do no harm to call it the "US Masters" in the blurb, after all our article on the tournament itself says "The Masters Tournament, also known as The Masters or The US Masters..." The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb ITN/R — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenRing (talk • contribs) 10:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with putting "US Masters", but just FYI we simply posted "The Masters" last year and in 2012 and 2011. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak support, state country We can improve on previous years by no longer assuming that if no country is mentioned then the country is the USA. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For goodness sake must we capitulate to every possible demand that HiLo makes? The piped article quite clearly states where the Masters is held. Include both titles in the blurb if absolutely necessary, just like the article does, but to seriously call this an example of systemic bias? Just drop it already. 98.180.53.48 (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's highly unlikely this story is going to be confused with any other golf tournaments...--Somchai Sun (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But since it'll do no harm at all and since our own article offers "The US Masters" as an alternative and acceptable title, there should be no issue with the alt blurb, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The point about systematic bias is a good one. The assumption that if no country is mentioned then the country is assumed to be the USA is a very clear example of systematic bias, in my opinion. The merits of the person putting forward the argument are not relevant here - if you have a conduct complaint then take it to WP:RFC/U. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Balaenoptera musculus The systemic bias gun didn't need to be brought out immediately; simply noting the potential confusion was sufficient. Looking for systemic bias everywhere means one will find it everywhere. "The Masters" only is assumed to be from the US if users do that themselves; however, it is confusing with other "Masters" tournaments.  That's the bottom line. 331dot (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the potential confusion is sufficient reason to state the country. All users should however feel free to raise whatever arguments they like in whatever order they choose. The 'systematic bias' argument is not one which is illegitimate or should be held back, in fact the evidence for it is (in my opinion) rather strong (e.g. see WikiProject Countering systemic bias). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Arguments that get overused weaken over time; systemic bias should be saved for instances when it is actually needed. 331dot (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Posted. I an unconvinced that we should mangle the name of the tournament.  There are many international participants, so it is not a US-only championship.  The Masters is held in Augusta, Georgia every year.  Yes, it is not a bad idea to say where an event happened, but in this case that fact is not critical.  By clicking the link the user can learn all about it. Jehochman Talk 12:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Just be aware that a certain user will be along to beat the systemic bias drum, even though that isn't the most important argument in favor of adding the nation(to avoid confusion). 331dot (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But does anyone really refer to it as "The Masters Tournament"? I don't think so either.  It should be "The US Masters." Simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Seriously? All that virtual ink spilled over literally 3 characters?  If there is a potential for confusion, even a small one, and it can be solved by adding 3 chars, there is no real reason not to do it.  Meanwhile, the real issue - that the update was very minimal - went nearly undiscussed.  Get your priorities straight people. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Still an issue with the name, can someone in the US clarify if this is ever called "Masters Tournament" in general parlance? It's certainly not called that in Europe.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * AFAIK "Masters Tournament" is the official name, but I don't think most people call it that in general parlance, no. 331dot (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is this even an issue? To anybody that knows golf, there is only one real "Masters" because it is one of the four majors. Anyone arguing about this is just trying to make trouble based on anti-American bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.1.124.211 (talk)
 * So, ITN is just for people who know golf? Right? HiLo48 (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I hope the users pushing to call this the U.S. Masters also decide to complain when we post the "Open Championship" in July.   Calidum   02:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a silly simplification too. HiLo48 (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.  Calidum   02:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

So if you don't know golf, why would you care about the event at all? If you do know golf, how could you ever get confused? Click the link and it tells you more information. What a miracle. I guarantee people will push for "Open Championship" to not be called "British Open Championship". People causing needless trouble. How much information do people need to be given? There will always be someone who doesn't understand or makes assumptions. We should also focus on the needs of native English-speakers first and foremost.


 * Hey,want to learn something today? Most Australians are native English speakers. HiLo48 (talk) 05:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * So why do you need to be spoon-fed information? If you see an ITN about golf, and you are a little confused, click the link and watch the magic happen. For clarification, I'm Canadian not American.


 * Then, being a smart Canadian, can you please sign your posts in future by typing ~ at the end? HiLo48 (talk) 07:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment IIRC this was posted as the US Masters but now seems to have gone back to being the Masters. Some error perhaps? Or have I mis-remembered? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Boxing

 * Qualified Opposition - Hard to establish a bench mark for cultural significance in boxing. Far more important stories going on. Can we also cover UFC while were at it, as thats never been featured. It was a big event, so there are some plus points, but London Marathon is probably more significant. I dont think this was a fight for the ages, but it was arguably one of a handful of fights qualified to be deemed fights of the year. Title changed hands, but Champion had no tenure. Was Bradleys first loss, so I guess that helps. 36 people died in mexico and its deemed trivial. This seems pretty trivial. On the other hand, all sport is trivial and needs to be represented none the less. The article would presumably be good and informative as these things are easy to do. The fight was truly international, and boxing is probably under represented considering its global status as a sport of interest and participation in all corners of the earth. Tepid opposition. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you think UFC should be covered, then feel free to nominate it here at ITN. You claim this was a big event, yet you also claim that there are "far more important stories going on." You also claim that the "London Marathon is probably more significant.", which may be true, but is not a valid reason to oppose this event. Plenty of items at ITN are more significant than other items at ITN, yet one item isn't not posted because another item is more significant. You also claim "I dont think this was a fight for the ages", which may be true, but neither are annual events we feature like The Masters and Wimbledon. I also want to point out that the significance of other nominations, such as the bus crash, are not relevant in nominations aside from their own. You seemed to contradict yourself quite a bit in your oppose.Andise1 (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No, plz no UFC,. Thats a fake b--- sport if ever I saw one. Im not your biggest opponent. Save your fire for the next guy Andise1. Tepid opposition is more like "meh". Wimbledon is like once a year and is the recognised biggie tournament in tennis. There are another 3 majors, but there you go. Tennis is arguably far more popular than boxing, but then boxing is PPV. Im not your biggest fan or critic, so just take it as a "meh" and prepare for the naysayers. My opinion is divided, not exactly contradictory. Its quite a left field suggestion and its not easy to work out in the context of sporting events. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Obvious question How many boxing organising bodies are there these days claiming to create world champions? If there is more than one, it cannot be our job to decide which one is more important. HiLo48 (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You cant avoid assigning a degree of arbitrary merit in these things. Anecdotally Pac was considered top 1 or 2 P4P for many years and Bradley is in that bunch just behind that. The biggest issue is working out the significance of a big boxing match to boxing. Its not like the UCL or the Superbowl. PPV figures often tell you how big the fight is, and thats a dirty road to go down. The belt is somewhat legit, but the weight range is not undisputed, as you have mayweather right there, refusing to fight pac and vice versa. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of sanctioning organizations, but there are generally recognized to be 4 major ones: The WBO, WBC, WBA, and IBF. This would qualify in the boxing world as a major championship.  Welterweight lists the champions of the 4 sanctioning bodies.  -- Jayron  32  00:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Four, but why can't it be our job to decide which matches (not which organizations) are the most important? That is what we do with every story that comes around.  Boxing fans don't need some organization to tell them "this is an important match" - they already know. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, that's four boxing organising bodies, multiplied by how many wieght divisions? We have a number up in the 20s at least. We won't post them all. Choosing any will involve masses of unsourced POV. No way we should be posting any of this disorganised rubbish. That turns my position into a clear... HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. There are plenty of (knowledgeable) lists of the best pound-for-pound fighters.  A rule like two of the top 5 on those a list could be used.  It might be subjective - most of our decisions are - but it wouldn't be without sources.  And of course, there is always the level of media attention that can be used as a guide. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There's probably somewhere between half a dozen to a dozen professional boxers whose matches are likely to attract international attention, such as Wladimir Klitschko, Manny Pacquiao, Floyd Mayweather, Jr., etc. There's no inherent need to post every title defense by at every weightclass, or even every fight by these fighters.  However, certain fights would garner ITN attention.  For example, Klitschko currently holds 3 of the 4 major titles; should he get the fourth he would be the first Undisputed Heavyweight Champion (widely regarded as the most important title in Boxing) in 15 years.  Likewise, the results of a Pacquiao-Mayweather fight would attract enough attention worldwide to be worthy of posting; such a fight has been hyped for many years now, and if it were to occur, it would garner enough media attention sui generis and on its own, to be worthy of posting.  -- Jayron  32  01:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's actually easy to determine which fights are "big"; the same way we decide which tennis or golf tournament is big. The fights which have the biggest purse are "big". A world title fight for any of the flyweight titles in the middle of nowhere isn't big. A world title fight in Vegas could very well be, but I dunno if it's automatically ITN material. Now I dunno how big the purse was on this one. – H T  D  02:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * According to the ever reliable Bleacher Report, The purse for this fight was $26 million dollars, with Pacquiao earning $20 million, and Bradley $6 million. This was less than the 2012 fight. Pacquiao was also to have his share of the PPV earnings; in 2012 he likely earned about $12 million from PPV buys on his fight with Rios last year. Compare to the purse for the Masters, where Bubba Watson got $1.62 million, or at the 2013 Wimbledon where Andy Murray won 1.6 million pounds, but both weren't beaten up. – H T  D  03:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose (See above) HiLo48 (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - in boxing circles, this was considered the most anticipated match of the year. I was considering nominating it myself (despite nevr watching boxing, I knew it was a big match). --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This and the marathon are probably sporting events of this week, worldwide, if i put my mr planet hat on. Boxing is truly an international sport, if a male dominated one, riddled with corruption. Just please, no UFC as thats not a real sport. Period.

Nominator and thad do have a point. If one was to template two sporting events for this week, id be inclined to favour the london marathon and this fight. If it was 1, Id still be inclined to favor the marathon. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The number of sports stories nominated in a week is irrelevant. Each sporting event should be assessed individually and not on the basis of whether there are other sports stories being nominated or posted at the same time. Andise1 (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Like i said Andise1. - qualified meh. Concentrate on the nay sayers, because to me its bordering on 50/50. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose on shaky grounds because boxing just isn't that big anymore. As somebody who has a love/hate relationship with boxing, I would like to see a story about Pacquiao on the front page because most boxing analysts (of which I'm not) seem to say that Pacquiao is one of the top fighters of all time, but this would be at least his 6th major title, and that kind of diminishes the value of it, in my opinion. Mvblair (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A Manny Pacquiao fight has been described as the Super Bowl in the Philippines only it happens twice a year. That means it's actually (A LOT) bigger than the NCAA tournament or the boat race in the US or UK. Now the question is if Pacquiao fights should be on ITN, and if yes, which? I haven't checked every Pacquiao ITN, but it seems we've posted if Pacquiao begins a new "tuple" champion. Pacquiao, with all of the 4 major sanctioning bodies, and tens of smaller ones, is the only Octuple champion in history. In this fight, he won back the WBO welterweight title he lost to Bradley in 2012, so he didn't win a new title in a separate weight division. I could not look into the future, but I'd guess that the next Pacquiao ITN that we should if he wins a new title in a different weight division he hasn't won before, or if he and Mayweather finally goes at it. – H T  D  02:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Manny is practically the patron saint of the Philippines and this is a big fight in boxing I believe, although I haven't seen a mtch since I was at my grampop's on a film reel. μηδείς (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose just another boxing match, just one of the four(?) welterweight world titles... If we start posting changes to world titles in boxing, we'd need a ticker.  And the target article is barely a stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree the fact there is no single boxing authority issuing titles and boxing doesn't have the stature it once had anymore. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Re:" boxing doesn't have the stature it once had anymore" -- Page view stats challenge: Manny Pacquiao vs Bubba Watson vs Mo Farah. Pacquiao eats both participants in ITNR events. It even had more views than the UEFA Champions League! – H T  D  11:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on the article as it currently stands (very short). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. I think boxing in some circles is much more popular than some ppl realize.  At my work there was more 'watercooler' talk about the fight than the NCAA or the soccer.  Certainly for many people boxing is considered to corrupt and too violent to pay attention to but not everyone feels that way.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Overland Park KS attacks

 * Oppose Clearly not notable enough. HiLo48 (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm undecided on this one myself, but in what way is this clearly not notable enough? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Three deaths. Simply not enough. HiLo48 (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Boston Marathon was 3 civilians. Sikh temple shooting was 6, and was considered an act of terrorism. Woolwich murders were 0 civilians 1 soldier and was erroneously reported as terrorism for a long time. I do think things like this are terrorism, however unfashionable it sounds, whatever religion was assailed and however few the victims. Will probably be categorized as a hate crime, but i dont see much difference between this and the sikh temple thing. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Reading the reports, this appears to be "crazy white man goes crazy, shoots up things" as opposed to anything planned out with any sense of terrorism. EG, this is comparable to the Fort Hood incident or the PA school knife stabbing, which neither was ITN. --M ASEM  (t) 00:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now; unless developments show this was an organized conspiracy, this (while horrifying and tragic) doesn't rise to the level of noteworthiness for ITN. Right now it looks like one guy with a gun and a screw loose.  Willing to reconsider if information changes.  -- Jayron  32  00:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose even if it was a conspiracy. There are plenty of conspiracies to murder people, some of which are racist attacks. Unless quite a few more people die, they aren't ITN-worthy. Neljack (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am heartened by the fact that there was already a Wikipedia article on the suspect. This suggests that the number of people who would actually do such a thing are vanishingly rare. I can't see posting this, though. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose: shootings, tragically, are not irregular in the US, as was mentioned, unless there was some greater plan, there is no special reason for inclusion for this article. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  10:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Acayucan bus crash

 * Oppose Random traffic accident, which we shouldn't even have articles about. --M ASEM (t) 19:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So an earthquake that kills 5 people is notable and should be posted on ITN, but an automobile crash that kills 7 times as many is neither. Got it. (Facepalm) Jinkinson   talk to me  19:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There's monetary damage and the fact that earthquakes can't be prevented in addition to the fact that tracking earthquakes indicates long-term interest in geologic events, compared to traffic accidents that are typically have no significant long-term impact and can be prevented. This is what WP:NOT is about. Death count is never a factor. --M ASEM (t) 19:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Realistically though, death count is a factor. Also one wonders at the media reaction if this happened in New York or London. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. ITN is to highlight WP articles that are topics of current news. Per WP:NOT and WP:NEVENT, traffic accidents are too common - even with death counts in the dozens - to be considered as notable topics that should not have standalone articles on WP (Wikinews, yes, but not here). That's why one piece of advice we use here is that we are not supposed to be reflecting a news ticker, but being careful about its selection. --M ASEM  (t) 19:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If enough people die, it will be ITN, regardless of what you say. Im not arguing with your position regards traffic accidents, only commenting on the nature of thing. If a tidal wave kills 2 people it wont be ITN. If it kills 280,000 like the one ten years ago, im sure we will be reading about it. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, again, that's not the metric. It's the encyclopedic nature of the event. A natural disaster on the scale large enough to kill someone is also likely going to have caused serious property damage, and will be something that geologists/scientists/civil engineers will study to understand and prevent similar damage in the future. A traffic accident is a very isolated event in the larger scheme of things. --M ASEM (t) 20:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The death toll is a factor, merely saying it is not does not make it so. It isn't the only factor and there is no magic level of deaths that makes something automatically notable, but if you think the death toll doesn't have any bearing on something's long term impact you are mistaken. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not dismissing the death toll but that's secondary to whether the event is encyclopedic in the first place, and it's also going to depend on the nature of an event. If, somehow, a road traffic accident caused the death of hundreds, that might be something. More clearing the notion that death toll should be considered a critical factor in comparing the value of various ITN stories. --M ASEM (t) 20:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * 50/50 The death total is particularly high, but traffic accidents do happen every day. Contrasting this with the forest fire in chile, the fire killed half the amount, but turned the city into a disaster zone. This has ruined many lives too, but is a localised disaster by comparison. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose terrible crash, but no notable cause or victims, no long term impact on society besides the victims, I.e., not encyclopedic. μηδείς (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Needs more celebrity. If Ultimate Warrior had been on the bus, or it had crashed into Peaches Geldof, that would be notable. But 30 dead mexicans just isnt a news story. #f---theworldwelivein. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it is just a news story. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless it posthumously inspires legislation that limits such deaths, as a result of public outcry. Then it becomes retrospectively significant culturally, based on the assumption of cultural significance at the time. ie Dunblane attacks. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Individual celebrity (and non-celebrity) deaths are posted based on the impact of the person's career not the death itself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * IP:77 is just trolling, Thaddeus. There are logical responses to his non-sequitur, but the effort isn't warranted in this case, as it just encourages it. μηδείς (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Saying rude things when no one can pronounce your name is trolling. I was making a point, but essentially I agree with the naysayers on this one. Road accidents are prevalent. Unless Randy Savage is in the car, or it kills treble figures, its unlikely to make ITN. 36 is a lot though, regardless of everything. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support There are some very odd arguments being made against this. First there's the argument that traffic accidents are too common: well guess what - earthquakes are also very common. In fact, there are more than 1000 earthquakes every day. So by this reasoning we shouldn't post any earthquakes. But while most earthquakes, like most traffic accidents, are utterly non-notable, that is no reason to refrain from posting earthquakes or traffic accidents that are significant. Then there's the argument that death toll is not a factor. That is saying that whether a traffic accident kill 0, 36 or 360 people has no bearing of its notability. That is absurd. We would never apply that to other disasters - nobody thinks that an earthquake that kills nobody is as notable as one that kills thousands. Of course, it's not the only factor, but it is an important one.


 * Frankly, there is a great deal of prejudice against "traffic accidents". Virtually any other disaster that killed this many people would be posted. But apparently it is different if it is a "traffic accident". And while the argument about widespread damage to property might be relevant for natural disasters - earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, etc - it doesn't apply to train or air disasters. Nor does the argument that traffic accidents are preventable - air or even train disasters don't get objected to on this score.


 * Nobody has been able to articulate a good reason why we should treat road accidents in a particularly unfavourable manner. This disaster killed three dozen people. It is getting widespread international media coverage. That is enough to make it notable and ITN-worthy. Neljack (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We are not a newspaper, we are an encyclopedia and trying to document topics with long-term, global significance. A "routine" traffic accident (a paradoxical statement yes, but you get my gist) is not going to have any significance beyond the short term time frame and local area. It will have a short burst of coverage, but it highly doubtful that next week we'll see much mention of it. This is not considered a notable event per WP:N + WP:NEVENT. As such, while it is "in the news", it is not the type of news we cover, and thus why we should not have articles on these things. And if we shouldn't have an article on the event, then by no means should it be at ITN. --M ASEM  (t) 00:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - Neljack is right. widespread international media coverage, a massive number of deaths for a crash. ITN worthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - article has been sent to AfD. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is too short and certainly can't be posted while it's at AFD. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose at present, per The Rambling Man. Mat  ty  .  007  10:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the moment, not because it isn't notable but because the article isn't strong enough. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I still oppose this for ITN, but the AfD is an overwhelming keep, and we have posted AfD candidates before. If merely proposing an AfD, which lasts 7 days min, were grounds for disqualifying a nomination, any old editor could veto any nom simply by placing an AfD tag on the article. μηδείς (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am fairly certain that when this happened in the past (posted noms with AfD's) the AfD's were snow closed by the posting admin. Should this nomination, which I Oppose, be posted, the closing admin could certainly close this AfD, which is doomed to keepture. μηδείς (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Clarification required perhaps this needs to go to RFC or at least be discussed at WT:ITN (I'll start a thread there shortly), but are we content to post items with an AFD template at the top? I have no dog in the fight, but if I was a first-time visitor to Wikipedia's main page, clicked on an ITN item to discover the top half of the article emblazoned with a "This article is being considered for deletion" tag, I'd wonder just what the hell was going on.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've initiated a discussion here, I'm not sure an admin posting an ITN item has any kind of carte blanche to snow close an AFD, the processes being 100% independent of one another. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] 2014 North Pole Marathon

 * Oppose target article makes no mention of Wardian, makes a "future" note of a "marathon" on 9 April, and has maintenance tags. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Its definitely news from a different part of the world than we are used to hearing from, but other than that, I dont really see it as significant. Will await the coming civil war between the polar bears and the wolverines. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless/until article improved. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose More record trivia than news. Thue (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] BLM/Nevada

 * Oppose. Minor legal dispute; this sort of thing is not uncommon in the western US where the federal government owns most of the land. The BLM has also not given up on enforcing the court orders; the movement was to prevent a violent confrontation. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is appalling. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Article has been significantly improved, well done Lihaas, but the story is still parochial and of seriously limited interest and impact. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong support. ! "I realize this is a long shot (And await the howls of US-bias)" Why be predictable. Lets use this. :D Now if youll all support the chile fire and the marathon, we can have tea and biscuits like gentlemen. Nominator - this is a genuinely interesting story, but seems a little small scale in comparison to current events, in my humble opinion. Thank you for bringing the dispute to a wider audience and will read with great interest as soon as I have some time. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support showcases the recent militarization of bureaucratic agencies from the federal to local level, with federal Bureau of Land Management's own internal sniper division training guns on family members armed with cameras and the sheriff saying protesters better be ready for funerals. μηδείς (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The protesters ain't just packing cameras(and have threatened to violently overthrow the government). 331dot (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The family had threatened no such thing, and I am unaware of any source attributing that to protestors, although the family does call the feds, whov've seized 134 of their cattle, thieves, and called for them to be "hung" in public opinion.. The BLM does not dispute that it dispatched its own armed agents in SUV's and helicopters prior to the huge public response as a result of the media coverage. Regardless, this is a showcase of coercive state action within the US against civilians in civil matters, no different from NSA spying, just potentially more deadly. μηδείς (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I said the protesters made the threat, not the family; That said, the protesters have included militia groups from all over the West CNN states at least some were armed and The Guardian states that Bundy said "We're about ready to take the country over with force!" Someone also stated ""Range War begins tomorrow at Bundy ranch at 9.30am. We going to get the job done!"331dot (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you have the chronology wrong. The feds showed up with snipers, and trained their guns on the family when no protestors had yet shown up, and the family was only photographing the actions of the feds.  Then the news broke, and all sorts of protestors showed up, and the family, emboldened, posted things to heir website that I would not have posted.  Then the feds said after the fact that the threats from the protestors was the reason they showed up with guns.  That is patently false.  But the reason this issue is notable is not the dispute or later developments, but the fact that the BoLM, a strictly bureaucratic division of the strictly bureaucratic Department of the Interior, showed up with its own unconstitutional enforcement squad in the first place, rather than getting a warrant to bring in the state constabulary, or the militia or military for an insurrection.  It's as if the BBC showed up with its own snipers to take out an unlicensed TV, or the National Health had snipers with guns trained on a patient protesting her discharge from hospital.  The matter is a civil one in a Western Country with a cherished history of the rule of law with civil regulators using armed force without warrant against citizens not charged with any crime. μηδείς (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be interested in commenting further but it probably wouldn't be relevant, so I will just thank you for your comments. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Storm in a teacup Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Youll rue the day when another IL president created war in his own country ;)Lihaas (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Where to begin.. From the article, it's not even clear what has happened – apparently the nominated "news" is that the authorities temporarily called off a law enforcement operation due to safety concerns. If you look at the edit history and talk page, the article's neutrality is being contested. Including the suggested blurb, which seems to misrepresent the current situation in favor of one side of the dispute. --hydrox (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * NO, the news is the profile not the halt. Operations are created and halted everyday, but most don't create such temprement.
 * Also no neutrality contested..Lihaas (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Whoever called this the "second civil war" should be nominated for a "hyperbole of the year" award. If another civil war breaks out, feel free to nominate that and you will have my strong support. Until then, no. Neljack (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 London Marathon

 * Support and I swapped the blurb for the (standards-conforming) altblurb. I would normally oppose this, but a record was set this year.128.214.214.26 (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is ITNR and gets posted every year, as being on ITNR means it is automatically considered notable; if you oppose its presence there, please propose its removal. 331dot (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Was looking under athletics and running on on ITNR or probably wouldnt have posted. Remove it as a nominee if you feel its redundant because of prior inclusion 331dot. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ITNR items still need to be posted here, for discussion about the blurb and article quality. Being on ITNR only means notability and its merits of posting are presumed, unlike non-ITNR nominations. 331dot (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose much of the prose in the target article is in the incorrect tense and no prose at all appears to exist for the result which we're publishing here, do we not also publish the winner of the women's race? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That was my understanding (re the women's race); I'm not sure when that got removed as it was originally in the blurb. 331dot (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Ive now changed the prose on the original article. Also I had a different blurb, but someone changed it. Someone has edited out the womens, and two wheelchair winners, which were originally to be included. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - the article will need prose on the race itself, not just a list of the results.  I will do this at some point today if no one gets to it first.  We do normally list the men's and women's winners (but not wheelchair winners), and I support mentioned the course record as well. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See 2013 London Marathon for an idea of the amount of expected prose. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Cheers Thad, have done the first paragraph from template, although require help with picture.


 * Note to all. Brits are likely to exaggerate the importance of Mo Farah competing. He brought publicity and crowds, but little else with regards to the elite competitive context of the race. He did reasonably well for a brit, but did not achieve any measure of relevance in the competitive narrative of the race. The british papers are all about Mo, when in reality he was not important in the races actual competition, others than the publicity and crowds he brought. Great athlete, but lets not get distracted by his participation. Strongly recommend trading on American media accounts for this one. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? This is an ITN/R article, so it's got nothing at all to do with Mo Farah or any other runner.  You need to spend some time reading about what ITN before making so many fundamental faux pas. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * People are editing the article. You need to work on your table manners and being able to adequately articulate a sentence, before talking s--- in my ear, about your petty little issues. 1 It "has" nothing to do with Mo farah. 2 spend some time reading about what ITN "is". You talk about faux pas, but you cant even type clear English. Be polite next time, and type in proper English and then I might actually take you seriously, son. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seriously, this has nothing to do with Farah, and the idea that you'd advocate using American press as a preference is appalling and demonstrates your lack of understanding of this entire process. Take some time out to read about it son.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Im editing the article and using different media articles as reference. A lot of the british ones are focused on Mo, rather than focusing on the race itself. If this is the wrong place to mention that, then fair enough, you have me there. would appreciate if you followed the basic directives of assuming good faith and not being a rude POS, before advising on the latter directives about the specific section we are in. Many thanks and have a nice evening. I have enjoyed reading a few of your articles, although I may have to edit some of those commas out. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, firstly, you need to, well, stop complaining about, um, the commas. Secondly, I suspect POS means "piece of shit", could you confirm?  Thirdly, the point remains, there's nothing here at all to do with Farah, and certainly no advice to stick to American news outlets should be followed in any way.  Many thanks, and have a nice, well, evening.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I,feel,like im conversing with,a man city fan or...perhaps william shatner. Will endeavour to stick to the format and use anything that doesn't focus the story on the guy that came 8th. Thanks for the heads up. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well Bill and I are close, and Aguero more so, but could you clarify that I understood POS correctly? British sources e.g. the BBC don't focus on Farah at all.  Perhaps you're tired?  Many thanks!!  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Purveyor of snideness. BBC Put down those rose tints and have a good night old man. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm fine about all this, I didn't suggest you were a POS or even mentioned Farah, in fact all I said was that the article quality was inadequate. It's still inadequate.  If you can be bothered to do anything, please do, if not, have a good night yourself old chap.  Sounds like you need the sleep.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You just woke me up tremendously. Feel free to jump in with some of those wikimedal level edits, and thanks for your comments. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Calm down, lads. Please be civil, assume good faith and don't bite the newcomers.  GoldenRing (talk) 09:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Updated - unless there are specific objections, the article should now meet minimum quality standards and be ready for posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Updated - got rid of the MPs, smoothed farahs story into the context of the race, and tried to weigh up performances according to merit. Review. The MP thing is saved in the talk pages if you have to have it, but the british public hate MPs and frankly they are right to. There were objectively more significant records amongst the public if you want to reflect that. Also the public part of the race traditionally reflects the public and not celebrities or MPs. but its still there in talk. Article looks crisp. Thank you. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Someone sadly died after collapsing at the finish line. Added the detail. Theres lots of information about people attempting obscure records and celebrities and mps taking part. Will probably mention, as its a big public participation event. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thad::: I moved it around a little bit, but i'm happy with it now, if you are. trust me on the members of parliament/members of public thing. Its the best way of expressing it, keeping your entry and reference, without creating an elitist dynamic in a traditionally mixed race. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment still only seeing the Elite men in the blurb. Article has been satisfactorily updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point Someone changed the original article. Will swiftly resolve. Many thanks.77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't normally post the wheelchair winners. See alt II. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted I tweaked the blurb a bit to fit the standard form for these sort of events. But consensus to post seems obvious at this point, and the article looks to be in good shape.  -- Jayron  32  14:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 Valparaiso wildfire

 * Oppose with no article to evaluate or update(such as a specific article about this fire, not wildfires in general). The purpose of ITN is to highlight articles about subjects in the news. Looking at some other news sites I'm not seeing much coverage of this fire so I would be interested in seeing other news stories about it. Blurb also needs to be properly linked and bolded. I'm willing to reconsider if these suggestions are taken into account. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per 331dot. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Give me a call when this IP editor gets bored of all these pointless nominations and starts to read the guidance.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Play the ball, not the man. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * How rude. Better clear your calender for the foreseeable future if that's your attitude. Not a fan of self important amateur librarians or cult mentalities on a supposedly free web platform. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I might not have said something in that manner, but I understand the sentiment. You're making a lot of nominations but not demonstrating that you are reading and learning about how things are done here and what we are looking for. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * To be honest the format seems somewhat redundant as one must edit or create a new article to reflect news stories not covered on wikipedia, which are many. Im not even sure I am allowed to edit some of these wikipedia articles or to create new ones as I am editing on an IP account. Furthermore I am not convinced that this whole thing isnt terribly provincial, as many of these stories would be covered if in a different region. However that last guy seemed very rude, and has really inspired me to contribute a bit more to these pages in the way of international stories that might otherwise be missed. Please thank lugnuts for the pep talk. I was indeed starting to lose interest, but he sure has made me interested now. I dont know who the we in "what we are looking for" refers to, but ill admit i was in perfect ignorance that you guys owned wikipedia and the internet. When i say "what we are looking for", im thinking of the worlds internet users, not a bunch of amateur librarians - all dude respect. Perhaps your contributions are not what we are looking for, signed the planet. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "We" is the Wikipedia community who comes here to discuss what is posted to ITN. That includes you at the moment- but you need to do a better job of showing us that you are learning about how things are done here and what we are looking for.  You are free to edit any article that isn't protected; creating an article requires IP users to ask for assistance (perhaps at Articles for creation).  331dot (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well thats where the conflict lies. I dont answer to you. I answer to my understanding of the format on a free internet platform. Your contention is that im doing it wrong. My contention is that when i click "In the news" I dont see an adequate representation or reflection of the worlds major news stories. There are two possible explanations for this. 1 The population/consensus etc is horribly skewed by over representation in one region. 2 The articles that are indeed ready to go reflect this. I dont want a wikipedia badge. I dont want to be your friend. I want to see some accuracy and reflection of the worlds major news stories in the ITN section of my wikipedia. Im not righting wrong, I am attempting to write some accuracy into a supposedly global format. The world spins, and here are its major news stories day to day. You guys are complaining that the wikipedia articles dont exist to cover these stories or that these stories are pointless. I honestly dont think the stories are pointless or that a rock awards ceremony is worth more than a city in chile getting burned into a disaster area. If you guys think different, then well that is a genuine point of contention. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you act like you own the place you are going to be sorely disappointed. Your understanding of "the format on a free internet platform" is severely lacking. Being concerned with systemic bias is a valid concern, but that does not negate the need to do things in the correct manner. That includes understanding the purpose of ITN, which you haven't really demonstrated yet. If you are going to be a regular contributor here, that is something that you need to do. 331dot (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I do own the place, as do you, as does every other sod online. The public own the place/ wikimedia foundation does. My only concern is rather than reflect the worlds news, the geographical bias behind article coverage, and consensus bloc, means important stories are being relegated behind NCAA basketball and the boat race. You think I have some explaining to do? A city in Chile just burned to a disaster zone and ITN is NCAA from last week and the boat race... 77.101.41.108 (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No one owns the place; decisions are made by consensus(which was the point of my link above). It's fine to be concerned about systemic bias, but that doesn't give you any more rights than anyone else here. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am starting to see this get more widespread coverage; if we get an article, I could support. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "I am starting to see this get more widespread coverage"... theres me thinking it was pointless.77.101.41.108 (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We still need an article. ITN is for highlighting articles. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Tentative support if there was an article. 11 people have now died, and its still out of control, with Valparsio evacuated and w/o power now. But we need an article, say, 2014 Chilean wildfires, to be able to use this as ITN. --M ASEM  (t) 14:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The point im making is the consensus is a geographical bloc, and the articles reflect the regional nature of the editors. furthermore theres the english language bias and the gender bias. Im not arguing that my opinion is worth more, im arguing that parochialism is a real issue that turns ITN into In The Neighbourhood.

Lets move past this. The story will gain traction as BBC and Reuters have both featured it, and it happened when much of the western world was asleep. Now if I was to write an article Im sure people would do their best to attack it. The fire really does approach the kind of notability that requires an article in my honest opinion.

All major news networks now covering it. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We cannot control who comes here and who does not come here to discuss nominations; we can only be mindful of systemic bias. I haven't yet seen disagreement that this fire merits an article, but we still need one before considering posting to ITN. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I posit that this incident is far more important than our little squabbles and earnestly and humbly invite any editors that are interested to create an article to support inclusion of this important story. If you want me to work on it with you, I will do that, but of course experienced editors are more likely to want sole ownership of the article.

Either way, its an important story, and if you are reading this and you want it, its yours. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No one can assert ownership of an article. 14:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Total support. I completely disagree with the early commenters above. Systemic bias are common in major US/Europe news agencies. The Valparaíso news is big here. The fire has killed more people than the earthquake earlier this month did. The city has been declared a disaster zone (that means, that the army occupies the place to ensure protection of residents and that stuff). I can't see why this shouldn't be posted. Yes, it's missing an article, which should be named 2014 Valparaíso wildfire (since there are other notable wildfires in Chile that occurred this year and that may -perhaps- merit an article later. I can contribute with a photograph if you wish, though I'm not available to write an article. (Updated: By the way, President Bachelet said that this may be "the worst fire in Valparaíso" ) (2nd update: Added a photograph. More will be available later at commons:Category:2014 Valparaíso wildfire) Küñall (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Küñall, as stated above, this is now getting wider coverage than it was earlier, which I pointed out. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I just noticed. Küñall (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Kunall - If you can safely get a picture from where you are, on to wikipedia, without breaking copyright or endangering yourself, it can go straight in the header. I completely agree with you on bias, but lets not get sidetracked again.

331dot - I pointed out from the b--- start how important this story was, and ran into a transatlantic firewall of ignorance, thank you very much. A f--- city burned down and BBC and Reuters were leading with it. The whole point of why ITN was set up was for stories like this post 9/11. Nevertheless, lets not get side tracked again. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not "ignorant" to state that there (at the time) was little news coverage. We cannot control what the media discusses. Fundamentally an ITN posting must be In the news. This is also not a news ticker but a place to highlight articles about events in the news; we don't post things before they are 1) ready to be posted and 2) have consensus to do so.. Go to Wikinews if you want to post news stories ASAP. 331dot (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I can upload a photograph, yes. But let's not exaggerate, the city was not completely burned down as you state. It has devastated some four or five hills once fulfilled with houses of poor people. Local media is reporting now 16 dead. Küñall (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Most of the American Alphabets were literally in bed time hours and most of the posters seemed to be preoccupied with sniping at me or trading on a misunderstanding of the severity of events. Again, instead of trying to get the last word in, lets get on with this thing. We are arguing while the poor blokes city burns to the ground. Thank you. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough Kunall. We are trading on what news we can get. Please upload photo if safe and we can move on under best practice from there. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not "trying to get the last word"; I am trying to correct your erroneous impressions- such as "arguing while the city burns to the ground" which 1) is not yet an accurate statement and 2) belies our purpose here, which is not to instantly post stories before they are ready. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Disagreed 331 dot. BBC, Reuters and AJZ already had the story. Were you literally waiting for the american networks/posters to wake up and legitimise it? 77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Correction : The city hasnt burned to the ground. 500 plus homes have, 17 people have been killed and the entire city has been declared a disaster zone by the Chilean leader. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I cannot survey all forms of media in the entire world to learn how widely a story is covered. I can only go by what I see and find myself; when I first saw this nomination, it was not widely covered. If it is now widely covered, that's wonderful. That also does not change that consensus and an article are needed before posting something. 331dot (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree to disagree. BBC, AJZ and Reuters are arguably the 3 most credible and wide reaching news entities in existence. We've both made our points. Lets get on with this.77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Damn Kunall - I saw the pictures on the BBC report this morning, but it hits home even harder when its a wikipedia poster you are communicating with taking the snaps. Thank you for the image for the header and stay safe man. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support on merits (significant damage in a part of the world we rarely hear about), but obviously an article will have to be written before we can post anything. I will try to get to it today, but I have a busy day already.  So, if someone else is willing to do it, please do. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Have made formal request for article, under the inhabitant wikipedia editors title - 2014 Valparaíso wildfire. If someone can get the ball rolling, with regard to template, I will be happy to add detail. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Would support if there were a suitable article, per ThaddeusB. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support "One Englishman is a story. Ten Frenchmen is a story. One hundred Germans is a story. One thousand Indians is a story. Nothing ever happens in Chile." Hold the Press--John Maxwell Hamilton. μηδείς (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Went to wikinews, but saw no sign of this story, so request collab there. Anyone who wants to make a template, I will add information and reference the best I can using the abundant reliable sources featured in the header above. I dont know much about article production, but im willing to do my bit. Thank you. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Article is now up in Spanish. 2014 Valparaíso wildfire Request information on how to translate and contribute. request all interested parties to spend 10 minutes contributing, using the many reliable sources featured in the header. Thank you. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am working on the translation. I would thank people not to mess up with it while I work on it. Küñall (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Noted. All yours. Cheers. Stay safe man. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support if article is improved. The article is in a terrible state at the moment, with numerous malformed templates, citations, etc. -Zanhe (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is a disaster. Has made "minor" news, a handful of deaths, rather "meh".  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The guy working on the edit is in the city that's on fire. appreciate if you show a little tact, rather than complaining that not enough of his neighbours have died, to your liking. All major news networks are covering the story, and none with the headline "Meh, 500 homes burned down, prime minister calls city a disaster zone, only 17 dead". Be polite and realize some people are actually living in the area they are referencing, and not sniping at strangers from a dented couch. Many Thanks. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Get a grip, anyone can work on any article here, whether that's the guy whose "neighbours have died" (cn) or you. Do something positive and edit the article, the quality of which (when I reviewed it) was inadequate for main page inclusion.  Stop making this personal.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you actually mo? Article looks pretty crisp now. Im on it. Your thoughts are your own. Obviously. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "mo"? What are you talking about?  I always avoid editing Wikipedia when drunk.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ...Thou protest too much, methinks. No one said you were drunk. Or a drunk. Or a drunk man city fan that bet on Mo farah. Lets concentrate on facts here. Baseless assertions have no place in these hallowed halls good man. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I have fixed up the article, it is fully translated, and all issues with templates and stuff was corrected. Küñall (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. Well done kunall. Stay safe. Should get an award for personally providing pictures and back story while the flames burn outside your window. Many thanks. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Comment - article now meets minimum quality standards. --ThaddeusB (talk)
 * Marked Ready given the only opposes are based on the now inapplicable lack of an article. μηδείς (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 22:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Good work people. Nicely done. Pleasure as always. Well done Kunall for contributing so much. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries, IP editor. However, I'd love if the proposed picture was actually used in the main page; I mean, it is much more 'impacting' than that of a bleeding heart drawing. Küñall (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed,. Its a good picture of a bad thing. I dont know how the picture is established, but you have my vote. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Military action in East Ukraine

 * Awaiting confirmation of extent of escalation. Will drop a few sources so we can all have a butchers. Presumably articles exist that are being updated regularly. This situation is on a powder keg and looks set to go off.77.101.41.108 (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support blurb of some kind, as per, below.  It Is Me Here  t /  c  22:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * strogn support this is certainly in the news and we need it on ITN. As its current, we can put it on the top.Lihaas (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Wait — Alas, this is one of those stories that take time to sort out. Judging from Reuters and BBC  Kiev's attempt to dislodge pro-Russia militants is not faring well, so far. Sca (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support for now updated story — Reuters, BBC,  Spiegel  say three pro-Russia separatists killed in abortive assault on Ukrainian national guard base in Mariupol Wednesday night. Sca (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems updated enough. Posted Thue (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Accusations of new chemical weapons attack in Syria
I'll leave this here for debate, and in wait of verification.77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose We can't post accusations. HiLo48 (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per HiLo; only confirmed attacks should be considered. 331dot (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see where either article has been updated with the relevant content, so I don't know what I am supposed to be assessing. -- Jayron  32  01:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose see above comments. It's a speculative news story about anonymous reports. Also, neither of the two articles seem to have been updated at all. Mvblair (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * note though I too poppose, ill point that we posted ghouta when the perpetrator is STILL not known. (officially...its apatently obvious the biggest terrorsit regime in the world (saud_) will do anything)Lihaas (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/11/syria-chemical-weapons-inspection-team-probe-attack Either way, the point is its doing the rounds on your current affairs page, so its worth considering if it should be there, if its not legit news at this point. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 09:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all those above which are readable, we shouldn't post speculation. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Story has some traction. 1 Its difficult to verify anything under these circumstances. Same story even with the large attack. 2 If both sides have accused each other of one specific incident of CWA, then its unlikely CWA didnt occur. 3 "The international body tasked with destroying Syria's chemical weapons arsenal says it will investigate new opposition allegations that regime forces have used banned chemicals in at least three attacks since January if the claims are referred by an appropriate state authority.""A senior Israeli defence official said earlier this week that new chemical attacks had taken place in the suburbs of the Syrian capital, Damascus. The claim supported complaints by rebel groups in Harasta that at least three people had been killed in late March, with several dozen more taken ill, after shells landing near them discharged noxious fumes" UK and Israel to investigate.
 * Content on the current events portal page is not discussed here; this page is only to discuss what appears in the ITN box on the Main page. The two are not the same. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Gulzar

 * Strong support

If culturally prominent to the level stated. The oscars are just the american film industry awards. bollywood is bigger than hollywood in many ways (films produced, ww revenues, tickets sold and annual growth rate) and india is a bigger country in population. If Oscars are featured, then lets feature this. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Support if culturally prominent as stated, based on 77.101.41.108's reasoning. Suggest amending blurb by removing the words 'will be', and waiting to post it until the prize has been awarded. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Indian cinema is a pretty big thing, and all sources name this as the most prominent award in Indian cinema. The biography article has sufficient sourcing and a minimum three-sentence update. --hydrox (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Question - blurb says "will be" - does that mean he officially gets the award at a later date? If so, we should wait for that date.  If not, the blurb should be in present tense. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The ceremony is at the 61st National Film Awards on 3 May. --hydrox (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, he will be awarded later but news will be stale by then. Not much media coverage will be there. Last year when Pran awarded, it was posted earlier for the same reason. -Nizil (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, we can probably get away with the simple "is awarded" despite the technicality. Otherwise, it would have to be "is announced as the recipient of" - either way it needs to be in present tense. --ThaddeusB (talk)


 * Really, bollywoods yearly ceremony should arguably be given parity with hollywoods. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Article will need work - referencing is fairly weak, and their are many WEASEL words. The article also makes some strange choices on what to cover - I very much doubt examples of his poetry (in Urdu) should be included in the article, for example.  Otherwise, I could support this on merits. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support because he seems to be an incredibly important figure. Mvblair (talk) 03:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * support firstly I dint know hes still alive. But yes notable lyricist, but then ai maybe biased...on this note its mehfil time for me... saki ne phir se mere jaam bhar diya... Lihaas (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose article is not of sufficient quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Care to elaborate on the specific shortcomings? --hydrox (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure...
 * Sections with no references at all.
 * Inappropriate section headings per MOS (e.g. "As Poet")
 * Hagiography (and grammar) such as "has a vast knowledge of", "He is creator of..."....
 * Dozens of unreferenced awards and nominations.
 * Unlinked or redlinked films in the filmography with no inline references.
 * Badly formatted references.
 * Only a really quick scan through, the article needs a massive amount of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support pending article improvements and present tense rewriting of the blurb, per Thaddeaus' suggestion. With India's large population and the enduring prominence of its cinema, I would even support adding the Dadasaheb Phalke Award to ITN/R because of its cultural significance. AgneCheese/Wine 00:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would support this pending the improvements noted above by Thaddeaus and TRM. -- Jayron  32  00:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Improved I have improved the article. Added references. Copyedited text. Reorganised content. Added inline citations except for award and filmography lists. Can someone check grammar as I may have made mistakes? Does inline citation for filmography and awards neccessary as the most of articles dont have them?
 * The awards section at least should really be referenced. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * References for awards won added. Minor grammar fixes done. Now is it ready to go? -Nizil (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Article looks good now. Unfortunately, we've had a lot of news in the last few days and this story is now stale.  Please renominate it when Gulzar officially receives the award and I'll be happy to post it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup, I know its late.. I am the only one who was working on the article and i dont have computer. So its tough to do it from mobile. Award ceremony is on May 3. Should I renominate on the same day? Regards -Nizil (talk)
 * Yes, please renominate it on May 3. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hepatitis drug

 * Conditional Support - If verified, genuine news. Hep C is a lot more prevalent (in places) and far more easily transmittable than HIV. It is also chronic and kills people. It lays dormant for years and affects a great many people. Anecdotally one can cut a finger and put it in a cup of HIV blood, a few minutes after its been bled, it wont transmit. Do not try this at home, obviously. But the contrasting stories of Hep C tell of a disease that lives in bleach. Scare stories, but the point of them is the contrast in respective ease of transmission. Ergo prostitutes and intravenuous drug users have massive percentages of Hep C, moreso than HIV, and Hep C can be dormant and transmitted to people without their knowledge relatively easily, whereas HIV doesnt have a long time active outside the human body. Also Hep C can be transmitted by things that dont work for HIV, so good news if true that this disease is now under control. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Question A cure for Hep C would certainly be a big deal. But this is only 2 studies (though large ones). Should we wait until results independently replicated? What level of verification is enough for us to consider it reportable? Or perhaps bill it as "Study claims ..."?


 * Comment. I wish the BBC had linked which study/ies it meant! The one I've found (SAPPHIRE II), published 10 April in New England Journal of Medicine looks interesting but doesn't seem to be the one the BBC is referring to. The accompanying editorial states several different combinations are currently under phase II & III trials with >90% virological response rates. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the correct study (thanks for finding it). Another article I read said it was published in The New England Journal of Medicine and said the drug was a combination of ABT-450/ritonavir, ribavirin, ombitasvir, and dasabuvir. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I confirmed the drug is unnamed at this time. The manufacturer's page, AbbVie, may be a viable candidate for the update. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd have to read around a lot more to be sure this is more groundbreaking than combinations with sofosbuvir, which afaik is the first approved HCV direct-acting anti-HCV drug that isn't a protease inhibitor, FDA-approved last December for treatment in regimens without interferon, again for the first time. (We really ought to have run with that, but don't seem to have done.) In my (admittedly biased) opinion, Abbott's approach to data manipulation is second to none in the pharma industry. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I don't think it is the study the BBC is referring to -- that report mentions patients with cirrhosis, while SAPPHIRE II is in patients who don't have cirrhosis. There must have been two phase III studies published at the same time, probably both with Poordad as one of the main authors. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My guess is that the other would be SAPPHIRE-I. A company PR says they were releasing the results of both at the same time. I will defer to your judgment on notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * did you get a chance to look into the importance, or lack there of, of this drug? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Sloviansk

 * Oppose nothing in the Sloviansk article at all, in fact it's in a really poor state. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose There were several occupations of gov. buildings already earlier this week, including one in Donetsk, the largest city in largely pro-Russian East Ukraine. So far, it seems like just another protest in East Ukraine. Call me when Putin intervenes, then we will post for sure. --hydrox (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reasons I gave on the nomination below In_the_news/Candidates. CaptRik (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose; this has been going on off and on for awhile now(building seizures). 331dot (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean its not in the news, as you insinuate in calling for references to indicate it being in the news, this ISs so.Lihaas (talk) 04:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Someone has removed my support for this story. Just for the record.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support in some form. The Ukraine story seems to be staying relevant, and even escalating. We should post something.Thue (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * support strongly some posting for this that's in the news. Maybe put a wider "eastern unrest" blurb instead? Try 2014 pro-Russian protests in UkraineLihaas (talk) 04:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This story is blowing up, literally.

"Ukrainian forces and pro-Russian armed men have traded gunfire in a battle for control of the eastern town of Sloviansk, the interior minister says. At least one Ukrainian officer was killed and both sides suffered casualties, Arsen Avakov said. Pro-Russian forces took over the town on Saturday, prompting Kiev to launch an "anti-terror operation". http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27008026 Should be monitored for escalations. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would support once an operation is carried out(or other similar escalation such as Russian forces crossing the border). 331dot (talk) 12:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * some parties are indicating that this has already happened. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.: the raids in the east of Ukraine were "professional" and "coordinated", "[giving] credence" to the theory that Putin is behind them. Nato: there are "[indications of] Russian military involvement" in Kramatorsk.  It Is Me Here  t /  c  22:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Israel imposes sanctions against Palestinians for signing of U.N. human rights conventions

 * Oppose Routine news. "Palestine does something, Israel issues sanctions". In the rest of the world, we call this "Tuesday".  This is a standard part of how the relations between these two countries go, and does not represent a significant change or lasting newsworthy development.  If live war breaks out, or conversely if a definitive recognition of sovereignty occurs, that'd be something.  When one of the two entities does something, and the other gets pissed off, that's just what happens all the time.  -- Jayron  32  13:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Contention with Jayrons point. We need to establish the significance of the treaties signed, before assigning this development to normal. It also seems to be on the side of Israel to ignore provocations, and only report responses. From a palestinian POV, they are supposedly at war, and occupied and are now being sanctioned for signing up to international arbitrary treaties. Also, I dont know that you talk for the rest of the world.This whole ITN thing started because of 9/11. The whole of the world was calling that tuesday until the sky fell in. I dont know that we serve history by ignoring root causes of conflicts, minimising other peoples suffering and only recording violent responses. Its easy to sit here and say its just another day in the west, but of course its possibly a very different story in different regions. Frankly if palestine have signed legit international treaties, and have thus been sanctioned for doing so, its seems like two news stories and both of them actually substancial. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So, what you are saying seems to me to be (when you say, and I quote " We need to establish the significance of the treaties signed, before assigning this development to normal.") that we must assume that any event is important, and only in hindsight can we decide that it wasn't that big of a deal. What an amazing way to live life!  Every bowl of Cheerios is an adventure waiting for a "based on a true story" movie!  Dropping the kids off at school on time garners one a Congressional Medal of Honor!  The daily bowel movement becomes the subject of the latest David McCullough history book!  It's only after careful and studied analysis that we can decide that it was just another turd; instead we must assume that all events are of "significance", and only years later should we decide that each of those was probably routine.  Brilliant!  I like the way you think.  Call up David McCullough and tell him to get his steno notebook and a #2 pencil ready.  I have some business with the family throne... -- Jayron  32  18:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * One can only guess at what the combined Allied forces thought they were playing at in establishing the Geneva conventions on human rights, or what 196 countries thought they were playing at in signing it. One can only guess at what the BBC and Reuters were doing, by calling this news...Set them straight "Jayron". Your comedy will be much appreciated at Canary wharf. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not that it isn't News. Surely this is news.  It's perfectly newsworthy, and I have no qualms with BBC and Reuters and any of a number of other news agencies covering it, as they should.  This needs to be made clear.  Wikipedia is not a news agency.  The purpose of ITN is to highlight high-quality Wikipedia articles which cover major news stories.  What article have you updated or cleaned up that you want to highlight on the main page?  -- Jayron  32  19:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And just to make clear, I wasn't lambasting your nomination in my immediately preceding statement. I was lambasting your fantastically flawed logic.  I'd have written nothing if you hadn't made statements worth of ridicule, such as the notion that all events must be assumed significant, and can only be declared insignificant in hindsight.  If you don't see the silly flaw in such a statement, I don't know that any amount of help will ever be available to set you straight.  You are, of course, free to nominate any article at Wikipedia you think is worth highlighting regarding major current events.  I personally don't think this one is really all that worthwhile, but that's not the important thing in this exchange we are having.  The important part of this exchange is that you should take care in how you present your defense of your positions.  When you make plainly stupid statements that amount to demanding that everyone treat everything as maximally important unless subsequently proven commonplace, you open yourself to ridicule.  Instead, try saying "look, I know this isn't a top level story, but we have a nearly featured level article to highlight here, and I think that is worth highlighting on the main page".  That would sway people's opinions.  It would certainly sway mine.  What won't sway anyone is making demands that we violate the basic principles of sound reasoning.  -- Jayron  32  19:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I linked a BBC and Reuters article that all mentioned sanctions and all call it news, and someone edits this out of the header, keeps the sources (as its BBC and Reuters)and white washes the story. What is this s---.77.101.41.108 (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * jayron. Im not a fan of your rhetoric, your attitude or your critical faculties Jay. Im sending it down the line to conflict resolution. You talk about ridiculing people, calling people stupid etc, while making points about cheerios and ignoring the international significance of UN/Geneva conventions on human rights. If you didnt understand my argument, perhaps its because you were not reading it, but were loading up one liners about cheerios. The significance of the conventions are set up in international law and culture, and the articles on palestine and israel already exist on wikipedia. I dont know what your problem is, but your whole spiel seems absolutely incredulous for a mod/admin. Complaint sent. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I think this is significant on a number of scores: (1) Palestine's accession to these treaties, which are only open to sovereign states, reinforces its claim to statehood; (2) the Israeli sanctions will have a major economic and budgetary impact on Palestine; (3) this dispute threatens to derail the peace talks. Neljack (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose As I see it, the real news here is that Switzerland called them the "state of Palestine" in a news release. Otherwise, it all seems like just another slash in the perpetual game of trading punches that has been going on in this region for quite long. But barring actual recognition, Switzerland still remains just another country who do not recognise the state of Palestine. --hydrox (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Why has someone edited the mention in current events?
 * Hydrox - BBC and Reuters disagree, as do the nations that also signed these international agreements and conventions, themselves hallmarks of international legitimacy. You dont really have the casting vote on international legitimacy. You talk about trading punches, and perpetual games and then ignore clear provocations and international developments. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What I meant is that if the news here are the sanctions themselves ("yet another punch"), I do not personally find them significant enough for ITN mention (not all news are ITN-worthy). If the news is that Palestine has signed up to join treaties, that can be unilateral as far as I understand (e.g. Sealand could just as well sign up to join treaties), so not very noteworthy. The most significant part as I see it is that Switzerland called them "state of Palestine", but that's not akin to an actual recognition, so not very ITN-worthy either. --hydrox (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not correct, hydrox. An instrument acceding to a treaty must be accepted by the depositary (generally a government, international organisation or international office-holder - the UN Secretary-General is the most common one for multilateral treaties), which examines it to see if it is valid. Generally speaking only sovereign states can sign international treaties (the exceptions tend to be related to international organisations like the EU and sui generis entities like the Holy See, so they aren't relevant here). Since nobody accepts Sealand as a sovereign state, no depositary is going to accept an instrument of accession from them as valid. Sealand simply doesn't have the status in international law to accede to a treaty - in fact, it doesn't have any status in international law. Neljack (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay then. Does this mean that Switzerland has recognised Palestine as sovereign? Why isn't that being reported? --hydrox (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It means that Switzerland is implicitly recognising them as sovereign, though it's not formal recognition in the sense of establishing diplomatic relations. I'm not sure why it isn't getting much attention. Neljack (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keeps being deleted from Current Affairs despite BBC and Reuters as source. Simple vandalism going on here. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Something tells me the Sealand Geneva convention, occupation by Israel thing isnt about to happen. Nvm. Will leave this to be debated. There is a level of international recognition and legitimacy being courted and realized here. Furthermore, the sanctions against an entity for basically signing international peace agreements is an ostensibly hostile and unjustifiable move. Team A sign the Geneva convention. Team B attack them with sanctions for it. SMFH. Seems like double news and signing international agreements and conventions doesnt seem like a hostile punch. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] [RD] Jesse Winchester

 * Weak oppose - on this as the forum of remembrance, purely on international notability. RIP to the man himself though. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm not seeing a lot of awards, honors, or other reason he was notable that would satisfy the death criteria(assuming this is an RD nomination).  I oppose a blurb as he was not the tip-top of his field and being 69 his death is not entirely unexpected or shocking. 331dot (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not near the top of his field. Teemu08 (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose doesn't appear to meet any of the RD criteria and the article is in poor state. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Panic after Lanzhou, China declares its tap water toxic
Have you got one? This only affects 2.5 million. μηδείς (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Again if it was happening in America it would be ITN. Furthermore the article and the issue directly affect a billion people in china, or a significant percentage thereof. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * . -- Jayron  32  03:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - If we do run this, we should name and link the city of Lanzhou, rather than use the vague terminology the OP has lifted from the Telegraph. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Im more interested in the story than any credit. Go ahead and edit my entry if you so wish Alex, or drop some directives and Ill happily defer to them. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support This is real news. Not sport. Not celebrity nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support upon update as a major pollution incident, though I disagree that this has any harder time getting posted being from China than anywhere else. I don't recall any other similar incident affecting millions of people not being posted. (and I invite others to demonstrate one, if it exists). Blurb will need wikification and article needs updating(or even a new article). Keep in mind the role of ITN is to highlight articles about events in the news, not be a news ticker. 331dot (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI 14 of around 70 stories were American. Thats massively disproportionate for an 5% of the planet on an international format. You have more than had your turn at playing the planets editor at large, so unless your name is jimmy wales, by all means keep those control impulses your own issue, and do not apply them to me. Maybe allow the rest of the planet a voice.77.101.41.108 (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If one was to audit ITN, it would hardly be shocking to find a bulk of nominees and stories coming from 5% of the worlds populace. A heady remainder may be from europe. Thats no crime in itself, as cousins either side of the atlantic have ready internet access and these pages are in english. However, I think world events such as this need to be highlighted, especially when they affect so many people. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please stop. You have been posting here all of 48 hours yet you presume to lecture us about our supposed bias.  We regularly post stories from all parts of the world, as you would know if actually looked instead of just making up nonsense like "95% of the stories come from 5% of the population". --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thats a personal comment thaddy, in fact a command! so Ill retort, You arent in any position to lecture me on my thoughts or opinions, last I checked. If wikipedia is your own personal fiefdom, please make this clear, and label it as such on the wikipedia entry.
 * There are 5 stories on ITN, not 70. One is American.  This is the nomination page, not ITN.  No one can stop anyone from nominating anything.  You could nominate 500 stories from Zimbabwe tomorrow if you wanted - then there would be 14 US stories out of 570.
 * If you want to keep making nonsense comments about something (ITN) you have no clue about, be my guest, but it doesn't make you right, and it will make people unlikely to read your future comments.--ThaddeusB (talk) 01:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * When i click beyond the header, I get the actual page of current events and thats where the numbers come from. You are being very rude, but frankly bigots often are. Also 4/8 of the headers of the ITN space itself are from the Americas. All 3 deaths are from the Americas. 1 out of the 5 stories are from the americas and 1 of the remainders is about computing and the internet, referencing microsoft. By all means cherry pick from that, but its 4/8 stories in your back yard. This leaves Cricket, the hurricane and the boat race as the sum total of the planets news. LOL. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That page is not part of ITN; it is called "Portal: Current Event" and is available for anyone to add any story they choose. As far as being rude goes, you have done nothing but insult people, mostly using your own imagined statistics since you got here.  If you actually bothered to look into my history instead of just making hateful assumptions, you would know I have nominated and written more non-American stories than almost anyone else. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "All 3 deaths are from the Americas" - You do realize "the Americas" is 2/6 populated continents right? A.N.R. Robinson is clearly not a US story. Nice try at obscuring facts to make your point that the US is over represented.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "1 of the remainders is about computing and the internet, referencing microsoft" - the Heartbleed bug is unrelated to Microsoft, as you would know if you clicked on the story. Another nice try at obscuring facts to make things sound more US-based then they are. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

In rowing, Oxford defeat Cambridge in the 160th Boat Race. In cricket, Australia win the women's ICC World Twenty20 tournament and Sri Lanka win the men's tournament. R- Then I honestly fear for your faculties.
 * well thats just categorically incorrect. I was very polite to you, and made sure to avoid ad hom, until you tried to attack me. And when you say the americas, you are supposedly including the southern part. 4/8 of those stories are about your back yard. Ie central and north america. This is not personal thaddeus. This is about facts. Is wikipedia meant to be international, or domestic? International. Are the stories currently reflecting what is in the news of this world, or whats making the rounds locally? The latter. All three deaths are local. 2 of the 5 stories are local. You keep on nominating trivial local news, whose international domestic counter parts are not nominated because no one is silly enough to go around nominating every time a chinese music hall of fame inducts people, or an indian tv host retires. If you honestly believe this is some kind of adequate or reasonable reflection of the main points of the worlds news - Heavy rains from Cyclone Ita (pictured) trigger severe flooding in the Solomon Islands, killing more than 20 people.

The rest of the stories and deaths goes - America, Canada, Trinidad, America, Internet. - LOL.

No ones writing great wrongs here. Im typing as politely as I can and trying not to laugh.

77.101.41.108 (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The United States does not care about Trinidad and Tobago. By equating the two, you are purposely obscuring facts to make your point.  A worldwide internet problem is not a local US story.  By saying it is you are purposely obscuring facts to make your point.  You might not have insulted anyone by name (other than me), but every single one of your posts is insulting to everyone who works hard on this project, lecturing us on our supposed bias (basically because we posted one story - NCAA basketball - that you don't like).  If that isn't being rude, I don't know what is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A lot of the people who work hard on the project agree with me, and a lot of the people who could have worked hard on it, left after 24 hours because of the CULTure. So I just read, anyways. Women where are you?

Regardless or irregardless, as they are indeed both words, out of 12 lines of ITN text, 6 are from your back yard, and 4 are from the NCAA Basketball tournament. And just to show no hard feelings, the boat race is a joke. The Uk is massively over represented too. You want to know what I want you to do? Get up tomorrow and click Reuters or BBC "world news" before you find a story to pimp. That would be a good way to get rid of me, and never see me again. you are excellent at what you do, but this is a world wide service, and indeed in many ways wikipedia is the "world service" of the day we are in. I am confused and befuddled at the amount of local trivial news, but thats just my opinion. Im not sending you demands to "Please Stop". I simply used my little voice to challenge it. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 02:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You complain "95% of the stories come from 5% of the world". The 5% obviously being the US, then you include a global internet problem, Canada, and Trinidad and Tobago in that 5%.  No doubt if a Mexican story was feature, you'd count that as the United States too.  But why stop there, Russia is extremely close to Alaska geographically.  The United States has military bases in hundreds of countries - maybe when thing happen in those countries they are in America's neighbor's too (the soil of such bases is technically part of the United States).  The US occupied Iraq for a couple years recently, maybe everything that happens in the Middle East is mostly of US interest too.  The United Kingdom, Spain, and France once owned the land that is now the United States so I guess anything that happens there is related to the US as well.  The United States fund most space exploration, so everything related to space is obviously an American story....  Even with all that, we still wouldn't be at 95% of the stories on ITN.
 * If you can show me one ITN regular that agrees with you that "95% of the stories come from 5% of the population" I will never post here again.--ThaddeusB (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * We are both victims of hyperbole, but when we actually looked, 14 out of 70 odd current affairs were from USA, and 4/8 ITN and recent deaths were from North America. You argue that USA has a big shadow in this world, and when in context, I agree. But not when your context is the 3 most important deaths that week or a sporting event dwarfed by one you ignored. And like I said, the boat race is a hilarious irrelevance too. You cant cite Americas shadow for importance of deaths, anymore than I could cite 5% for importance to the nuclear arms race. American lives are not more important to this world, or to wikipedias explicit and expressed policy. And the worst part is, its not American lives getting the nod, but the deaths that seem relevant to an american perspective. So whats being expressed and reflected in Wikipedia (international format) ITN (world news) is American perspectives on America and her neighbours. And no sarah palin, russia is not part of north america, however close it seems from your window. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is a list of every ITN featured story I have personally worked on (most I also nominated) since January: Treasury (Coin) Note, Constitution of Tunisia, 2014 Australian Open, Stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency cell, Sappho, 2014 Winter Olympics opening ceremony, 2014 Winter Olympics closing ceremony, Federal Government College attack, Pithovirus, 2014 Winter Paralympics opening ceremony, Chiquita Brands International, DNS root zone, 2014 Lake Albert boat disaster, Kakuryū Rikisaburō, Iwao Hakamada, Yakov Sinai, Enceladus, The Boat Race 2014, 2014 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship Game. Of those TWO are primarily of interest the the USA - Treasury Note (which I didn't nominate) & NCAA basketball. Two of 19, or 10.5%, that is all. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I can agree that RD is slightly biased, specially towards US entertainers, but again Trinidad is about as related to the US as China is. I do not agree main blurbs are biased towards US stories, and I certainly do not agree my own contributions have any bias at all. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I will admit, I see nothing wrong with righting wrongs, when the wrongs are over representing one tiny denomination and sizeable slize of the map, and the righting is adequately and honestly setting out to accurately represent and reflect the worlds news stories. This is the correcting errors and positively setting out to reflect the worlds events business, not the caped crusader and robin. It simply makes no sense why one little area and people should be featuring to heavily on the event catalog, even when one allows for the insanity of the cult of american exceptionalism and the considerable shadow of americas world status. The fact is (again) you are literally 5% of this worlds people, - its not so much why are you evil people dominating the news, is more "who f cares?!?" to some of these things.

Bottom line. This isnt a format for local news > world news.

And if you would like to paint me a wrong righter, Ill admit the one thing on this issue that irks me to this day, is almost every american Ive ever met knows all about the BP Oil slick, and hardly any of them have heard of Bhopal, or the 5 times the death total of 9/11 that was wiped out there.

Is that my MO when I assert the NCAA is smaller than the UCL? No, of course not. I just look at it like this. The world is a big place. There is a constant stream of international news. Whats most important? I dont sit here and surf british news all day long and drone on about the boat race. I have an internationalist perspective on my news. I would have that in a big country like america, just as i do in a small insular island like the UK. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose No target amongst all the snark. μηδείς (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Water supplies becoming tainted due to foreign toxic additives is not new - this may be the largest such warning of this size, but far from a new thing in the world. The situation can be corrected, and it will take some time, and likely will be a footnote in the future, barring any investations on the source of the benzene. --M ASEM  (t) 01:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose until the articles can be beefed up about this incident. It should be ITN because of the enormous size and reach of the pollution in this incident, but the articles don't source it very well. I don't mean this to be inserted into the debate going on above, but Love Canal, Bhopal, or the Japanese mercury poisoning crisis in the '50s would have been on ITN had it been around, and this could potentially be worse. 2,500,000 is a lot of people to suddenly stop drinking water. Mvblair (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose What article are we judging to put on the main page? I don't see any updated article we are highlighting?  Where are the improvements we are assessing?  -- Jayron  32  03:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - the only real consequence so far seems to be brisk sales of bottled water. No report of anyone being sickened or killed by the polluted water. -Zanhe (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Thadeus' - Tell you what. This story is yours. If you feel it is significant to work on then be my guest. If you would rather work on the awards things, go for it. I dont have the experience to edit the wikipedia article, and its pointless shouting down fibre optics, for 1000s of miles. Its all yours if you want it, and we can send it down the memory shoot, if you dont. Same goes to the rest of you. This is an important story, but im not experienced at editing wikipedia articles. Its in your hands. Do with it what you will. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose from what I've read it's about levels of benzene being too high (which may give you cancer at some point), and everyone's been advised to avoid it for 24 hours, and then it'll all just pan out. No big deal really.  If it was Ebola, I'd be more interested.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Madagascar names new prime minister
Nominating really for the boards discretion. Political change. Roger Kolo doesn't even have a page on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose. The President chooses the PM in Madagascar, so he wouldn't want someone who wouldn't carry out his policies and support his views. Not really a dramatic change. If posted, the blurb does not need to mention his radiology and living abroad, that's not relevant. Nor should it mention the day of the week. 331dot (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Significant news from an under-reported area. Neljack (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, insignificant news from an area that could have something else happen. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - significant.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support if accompanied by an article of acceptable standards. Significant enough for sure. Anyone know if this guy can be bribed to keep the damn ports open? --hydrox (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:ITN/R clearly states that changes of head of governments must be discussed on their own merits. Given that there is no article that meets the quality requirement for ITN, nothing should be posted. And don't bother creating a crappy stub such as "Kolo Christopher Laurent Roger is the new prime minister of Madagascar." Our readers expect to find out more than the news media are reporting. In other words, who is the guy? Abductive  (reasoning) 17:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about ITN/R? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ITN/R is the consensus for the topics it covers. This is one of the topics it covers. To put it another way, everybody has said something about ITN/R, and the consensus is not to post this. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, only you mentioned ITN/R. Cheers!  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * When I say "everybody", I mean all the people who have ever participated in WP:ITN/C and all the people who have helped craft WP:ITN/R. The consensus I am referring to is the one developed at ITN/R. That consensus says this cannot be posted. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, nobody but you mentioned ITN/R, if an article isn't listed there, then it's up for debate here. Quite why you alone thought it was relevant to bring up ITN/R is entirely up to your own thought process, but no-one else has mentioned it at all.  The consensus at ITN/R is undefined (show me the discussion, for instance) and since no-one mentioned ITN/R, this is a simple ITN/C case where we have to discuss its suitability.  Your mention of ITN/R was entirely 100% irrelevant, right?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It may come as some surprise to you, but consensus is not entirely the result of discussion here. There is precedent to consider. I was reminding people here that changes to heads of state are supposed to be posted per ITN/R, but that changes to heads of governments are to be discussed on their own merits. Given that the stub is one sentence long, it cannot be posted, since WP:ITN "serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest". One, there is no article. Two, nobody is interested in it (well, 34 pages views must include some human eyes, perhaps ten people looked at the stub). Abductive  (reasoning) 20:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Peaches Geldofs wikipedia page has like half a mill more views than the ultimate warrior. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, pretty much exactly what I meant with "if accompanied by an article of acceptable standards". The thing is that we don't have a new ITN story to post right now, so if someone is kind enough to create a good article on the new Prime Minister of Madagascar, I am all for it. --hydrox (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Irregardless of whether this is covered in ITN of not, the man surely needs a wikipedia article at this point. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Article creation is not discussed here(outside of the context of ITN) but at Articles for creation. 331dot (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Possible exomoon detection

 * Seems like it's no less speculative than the "MH370 ping" story I proposed below. However, I am neutral since there may be convincing arguments to be made in favor of this nom. Not anymore: in the absence of such arguments, I am now opposed. Jinkinson   talk to me  22:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose as unconfirmed. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose as unconfirmed. Seconded. Would absolutely change if confirmed. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Didn't we have an exo-moon nomination within the last few months? Or am I misremembering? μηδείς (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose as a "possible" discovery. 331dot (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose as unconfirmed, support if/when confirmed. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductions

 * Weak support Eh I'll give it to ya. (Possibly because my favorite band of all time that isn't named Led Zeppelin or Radiohead is on the list.) This is a recognition of the best of the best of rock and roll, despite its criticisms. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak support - per entertainment news being underrepresented in ITN, to achieve BALANCE this would help. I'm not an R&R fan and even I've heard of the artists in question, so there is mainstream name recognition here -- Tawker (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting not-all-to-common entertainment news. And OOOOH YEAAAH from a personal perspective. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The target article is problematic and has maintenance issues. The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame is a museum—a tourist attraction—(insert anything) Hall of Fame does not make the inductees or the induction process notable just because there are famous people. We don't post hockey players being inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame. Why is the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame any more significant? All this is doing is creating more publicity and advertising for the tourist attraction itself. A museum does not have credibility in determining significance as award organizations do, such as the Grammys. 70.26.173.105 (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sports HOF inductions rarely generate much press coverage and are national/regional in nature and usually restricted to one league. R&R has global appeal and generates a lot of press coverage, so that is the difference.  HOF inductees are determined by voting from a selected group of industry people, just as the Grammy awards are...  You are correct that the article will need work, though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I would not advocate for post every year's inductees, but this year seems especially notable (as I said in the nom). --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per IP 70. Basically a vanity event and tourist trap paid for by infusions from the city of Cleveland and run by non-musicians, unlike a peer system, such as the Oscars. μηδείς (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Weak opposition, although I dont enjoy knocking something so important to the nominator.77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 'weak opposition'. I dont know. I dont know that rock is most popular. I dont know that this isnt just more parochialism. I thought hip hop was the most popular world wide to be honest, but who knows.
 * How much hip-hop do you think sells in India, China and Indonesia? AlexTiefling (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Alex it went into pop music. even that dance crazy from korea was hip hop. Point is im not advocating for hip hop, but doubting the universality of rock, and the universality of this HOF. If this is a game off numbers, Ill delete weak opposition and leave it at some doubts. I dont want a vote here, just to express a non american opinion. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI, hip hop is often considered a derivative of rock music. I am pretty sure hip hop artists will be considered for the R&R HOF once the requisite time has passed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hip hop is derivative of everything, but Rock is a derivative of blues... Im pretty sure you have those cultural bragging right the wrong way around. Honestly Thad, I have no great opinion on this, other than to question the universality and international significance of the event and to some extent the genre. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Rock is derivative of blues, jazz, and bluegrass, mixed with elements of what came to be known as "pop" in the 1950s, classical music, funk, R&B in the 60s and 70s, and etc. Hip hop came out of likes of Grandmaster Flash in the late 1970s and takes its roots from Soul, R&B, Funk, and Reggae. All musical forms are derivatives of others. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  23:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My only point was that hip hop artists could be inducted into the R&R Hall of Fame (and per Black Kite apparently already have been). --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There have been hip hop inductees to the R&RHOF; Public Enemy and Run DMC off the top of my head, there may be others. Oh yeah, Support. Black Kite (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support, but Nirvana is hardly a head above the rest of the crowd. I'd say Peter Gabriel, and most especially KISS (despite them not giving a fuck), are the headliners. R&RHOF inductions might be worthy of adding to ITN/R; they're certainly as notable as the Grammys. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  23:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)`


 * People need to stop assuming global appeal on these american events. 5% of the planet is american, and 95% of the in the news stories.... 77.101.41.108 (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The latter statistics are patently false; at one point we had 5 stories from Asia (3 of which were from Japan).  Currently there is only one story from the US. 331dot (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, you need to stop assuming everything you don't care about appeals only to Americans. Nirvana, for example, is a featured article on 5 non-English Wikipedias and a good article on 4 more. If only Americans cared about rock music, people would not be bringing such articles to featured status in so many languages. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thadeus my thoughts are my own, and they are guided by example after example of nominations that are based in one geographical region, containing 5% of the worlds populace, featuring stories that have little to no relevance to anyone outside it. Yes, nirvana were great, but this is not the day Kurt Cobain died, and frankly more people probably take interest in a bollywood film ceremony than this in the real world.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I direct you to the top of this page where it says "Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." Every event has people that care about it in some places and not in others. If you want to see more ITN items from other places, please nominate them, as you did here.  331dot (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Regardless of civility, it means nothing where Im at, and has little to no international significance in my humble opinion. My words and my perspective can only reflect that. If it was the ultimate warrior dying, or indeed kurt cobain dying then I would honestly have to support inclusion. If it was Rick Flair being inducted into the HOF, then I can only say, not really internationally significant imho. Same with Nirvana. Its a salient fact that its not internationally significant 331. One can be cordial about it, but its still a 5% nominee, with little to no reach outside the states. You confronted the subject, and perhaps its best addressed on a meta forum, but the bottom line is if its not internationally significant and is a domestic level event, then im going to have to say that. I can be polite, but it is what it is.  77.101.41.108 (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * An event being "domestic" does not and will not preclude its being posted, as long as it is sufficiently in the news and the article is sufficient. Again, if you want to see other stories here, nominate them, don't just tear others down. 331dot (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * In the news where? Also you seem to be saying its tit for tat with different nations wanting more exposure etc,. But all im seeing is a massive bulk of domestic interest US stories....It is an issue when an international site is 95% based in one 5% area. Of course one must be civil, but its definitely worth addressing and FYI the first accusations of parochialism came from the east of the pond on the peaches geldof debate. Will endeavour to be polite about non international stories though.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.41.108 (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Where are all these "domestic interest US stories"? There is only one right now. 331dot (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This story is already featured on ITN,- i just checked, as are a good 14 headers from around 70 stories. Fair enough, its not 95%, but its still dis proportionate, and frankly a lot of them are trivial and silly. do you really think colbert replacing letterman matters to anyone outside of America? so why the positive discrimination? We all want different things when we click wikipedia, but most of the world doesnt want "American trivial news". 77.101.41.108 (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "This story is already featured on ITN", um no it is not. This is the page to discussion additions to ITN only.  There are five items on ITN at the moment - the heartbleed bug, NCAA basketball, Cyclone Ita, The Boat Race, and ICC cricket.  Only one of those is primarily American; three have absolutely nothing to do with America and are of little interest here.  Occasionally there are two American stories on ITN, but other times there are none.  No one has even nominated Colbert replacing Letterman, and if they did it would be voted down easily.  Incidentally, 50% of Wikipedia's viewership comes from the United States. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Find another forum for this discussion and well have it there. When I click in the news, - more news stories, I get the actual page, not the header. And thats where i get numbers from. Im not really bothered where wikipedia gets its audience from. Its not advertised as a domestic site, so I take it as an international one, and a universalist one, as indeed it advertises itself. It doesnt say ITN America. It says ITN. You dont speak for all of wikipedia or her audience, as frankly wikipedias gender bias is in the news, and its geographical bias is well known. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * When you click on "more current events" you will be it takes you to "Portal:Current events" which has nothing to do with ITN, other than the link. Anyone can add any story to that page.  And yes our readership is relevant - we are here to serve our readers.  We are not here to right great wrongs (e.g. real world bias).  --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No one is trying to expose child molesters. I am challenging you on your explicit and covert policy of positive discrimination toward american stories. They are featured 4/8 on the ITN and deaths, even on the specific ITN space. This is not real world bias, this is a ridiculously misplaced concentration on one geographical area, on what is self purporting to be a global format. By all means get rid of the wiki globe and turn it into a North american outline, if that is your purpose. No one is stopping you or trying to right that wrong. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A.N.R. Robinson is not from the United States... If you honestly think the United States only plays a 5% role in world affairs, then you are very out of touch with reality indeed.  You advocate for it having only 5% of all stories, which would righting the "wrong" on US influence on the world, not a reflection of reality. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I dont think USA should be on a 5% tariff of stories, nor do i hold americas 5% of the planet as worth more than the other 95%, and nor does or should wikipedia. If you honestly think the NCAA basketball holds anything like 50/50 with the unmentioned champions league, in world sport, then you are very out of touch with reality indeed. You advocate for it having 100% of all stories, between the two on the day, which would be righting the "wrong" on UCL influence on the world of sport, not a reflection of reality. Reality is 5% of the planet is not more important than the other 95% person to person. There is importance, and then there is ignorance. If you post a natural disaster or a sporting event in America and ignore a similar natural disaster somewhere else, or a bigger sporting event somewhere else, you are just being ignorant. It has nothing to do with righting wrongs. wikipedia is an international format, and you are going out and over representing one area. This is not some great injustice on the world, it is silly and myopic and tiny minded. I am not the avenger here, and you are not the bad ass. You are some guy in a garden, pimping stories from his one street, in a city full of streets and people. Its not an international perspective. You cant act like the world revolved around USA, because it is just 5% of the planet, however much you seek to act like its not. And wikipedia is an international format, and not a local or domestic one. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Dude you are arguing that North America not only has 50% of all ITN, but that it somehow has trivial stories of insignificance, that are worth more than other peoples trivial stories of insignificance.
 * Champions League is obviously more popular/important than NCAA basketball. It will be posted when it is complete.  Each having one story does not mean ITN sees them as equals - it means we only post final results.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

'Thadeus' - Tell you what. That China story is yours. If you feel it is significant to work on then be my guest. If you would rather work on the awards things, go for it. I dont have the experience to edit the wikipedia article, and its pointless shouting down fibre optics, for 1000s of miles. Its all yours if you want it, and we can send it down the memory shoot, if you dont. Same goes to the rest of you. This is an important story, but im not experienced at editing wikipedia articles. Its in your hands. Do with it what you will.77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose. Hall of Fame inductions are relevant to things like RD, but I don't think the inductions as an event are noteworthy enough. 331dot (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The actual induction ceremony is the most appropriate time to bring this to ITN - while they are actually named earlier (a couple months?) this is when they get the most coverage. --M ASEM (t) 01:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I know there are issues on the "reliability" of the process (it can be bought, canvassed, etc, it has a strange set of limitations that have kept out some notable artists, etc), but it is considered a pinnacle of popular music today, with more long-term relevance than Grammy awards. --M ASEM (t) 01:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on personal preferences. While the artists themselves might be culturally significant, who cares if people give them a speech and put some of their outfits in a museum? Mvblair (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Is this really so much bigger than other halls of fame? I don't recall hearing about inductions to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame before, whereas I've definitely heard stuff about inductions to the Baseball Hall of Fame, for instance - and I'm someone who doesn't follow baseball at all and lives halfway around the world from the US. Plus what's particularly noteworthy about Nirvana being inducted? Is it a controversial decision? Neljack (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, entertainment news that is twenty years delayed. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose — A scripted entertainment event, not significant in the larger scheme of things. Sca (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Neutral I read "A scripted entertainment event" above, isn't that the Oscars? The BAFTAs?  All scripted?  I read " entertainment news that is twenty years delayed.", isn't that "hall of fame" for sportspeople that so many here bang on about?  Either way, it's nice "good" news, and it's interesting to our readers for sure, but it's probably not significant enough for ITN.  So I'll remain firmly fence-bound.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that sportspeople don't get posted when they are inducted into halls of fame. It is used as a measure when considering RDs. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Shocking though it may seem, I don't find the Oscars significant, either — compared to, say, the Middle East, a tsunami, the melting of the polar icecaps or (I almost forgot!) the NCAA championship. Go Big Blue! Sca (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose per 70.26.173.105 - isn't this just PR? to me this seems equivalent to "theme park opens new ride" or "McDonalds opens new restaurant". Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

[RD] Lou Hudson

 * Oppose Athletes with greater accomplishments have been rejected from RD before, including (IIRC) one of the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History. Also, note that he never played for the Atlanta Hawks, but for the St. Louis Hawks. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My memory is correct. Bill Sharman, one of the "50 Greatest Players", died in October and we did not post him. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't active when Sharman was nominated, but looking at that discussion I say "what a joke". Although, I think there was enough consensus to post (shame no admin had the balls to do it), the fact that it was even a question is outrageous.  One argument was "he's not the single greatest player in history" (which got a oppose per X too) - seriously? That is not even remotely the RD standard.  We post an entertainer almost every week, but can one post 1 basketball player in the next 30+ years?  WTF.  We definitely should not be using that shameful display as a basis for any decisions ever.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Question - Hudson does not appear to be in the NBA HOF based on our (stubbish) article. Is there a reason he may have been unfairly excluded (arguably of course) or is he legitimately not HOF-level? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll let an actual HOF member, Dominique Wilkins, answer that: "Young people today don't know how good Lou Hudson really was," Wilkins, a Hall of Famer, told The Associated Press. "He was a hell of a player. The guy could score with the best in history. He was a phenomenal basketball player. He should be a Hall of Famer and it's amazing to me he's not. "  Jinkinson   talk to me  22:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no "NBA HOF"; there are 2 basketball Hall of Fame: the Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame and the FIBA Hall of Fame. The former, while primarily U.S.-centric, has a separate "international" section, while FIBA's primarily restricts theirs to those who played international basketball; not all the best American players may have played international basketball, especially the old ones prior to the open era. – H T  D  19:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Doesn't meet the RD standard.  No MVP awards, not one of the best 50 players, etc.  A six-time all star and having a retired Hawks jersey doesn't cut it.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, ITN has passed over three basketball players months ago who should have been more accomplished than Hudson, so it's quite fitting to oppose this one too. – H T  D  19:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Lab grown Vagina implant

 * Oppose As no article. If the article is written I would still likely oppose for ITN, but would suggest maybe WP:DYK. Pedro : Chat  11:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Definite oppose with no article to evaluate, undecided in general as of right now. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * - care to reassess now that the article exists? --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support (if you please) Ok gentlemen and women. Im unaccustomed to your way of doing things. One may not of course write an article so how is this done? If the job is to find a wikipedia article that needs to be ammended, then thats easy. One can not be a journalist, nor can one ignore a significant story, through lack of pre existing wikipedia coverage.

For a wikipedia article Id suggest starting at Tissue Engineering or (NSFW) Müllerian agenesis

By the way, what has started as a small story is snowballing as we type, and as the worlds media finds inventive new ways to cover it over breakfast. Google "Lab Grown Vagina", and you will see all the familiar outlets (BBC, NBC, Newsweek, Huff Post, Fox News, RTE, The Lancet, Independent, Daily Mirror, National Geographic, Daily Mail, MSN, CNN etc) are rising up to the occasion.

Let us debate this thing. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Part of posting to ITN is having a decent quality article to evaluate. Even if the subject has merit, a poor quality article cannot be posted to the Main Page of Wikipedia, seen by millions of visitors.  This is why we need to either have an article about this subject or to know which article can be added to(and to eventually see the addition). 331dot (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Well at risk of ignoring more appropriate wikipedia articles I propose Tissue Engineering. (NSFW) Müllerian agenesis is another option of course. This is a cutting edge area of science, and there are more than a few wikipedia articles. I have not the background knowledge to amend, nor to propose how to amend. Instead I will jump out on this issue and leave that element of the stories wikipedia "in the news" resolution to my more illustrious and notable peers. Thank you.

I should add, the tissue engineering article currently has other articles for each of the achievements and organs engineered. This latest addition is definitely snowballing into the news cycle across the worlds media and it feels like we are basically waiting for someone to come and write a specific article to reflect that. Even the tissue engineering article by itself is informative and SFW appropriate, if a little exhaustive. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Support the use of Tissue Engineering in this context. High news value, better to use an article which isn't perfectly apposite than to do nothing. If we ignore news stories of particular importance to women due to the relative lack of articles in Wikipedia on those topics, we exacerbate the WP:Clubhouse (external link) problem IMO. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Lab grown penis already has a (50/50 shared) wikipedia page, and it isnt even out of the blue print phase. On the day we as a world hear of 4 women newly fitted with lab grown vaginas, it has not even a bullet point on the whole of wikipedia and is ignored as a news story. Could one see a more obvious and self evident example of gender bias.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis_transplantation

77.101.41.108 (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So write an article on Vaginal transplantation or lab grown vagina. You seem passionate about the subject, so I'm sure you've read or would happily read all the articles covering the subject; write an article, add links to those refs between [ these brackets ] and someone can help translate those into citation format. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  18:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I dont have much experience in that area. Wikipedia articles I mean. Not vaginas.77.101.41.108 (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment you might consider updating Anthony Atala, which is of course more relevant to this topic than the article proposed in the template above, and then featuring that on the main page (though you'd have to reword the blurb). Jinkinson   talk to me  20:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have given vaginal transplantation a very preliminary start. It is not ready for posting, but I will work more on it tonight or tomorrow morning. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It's not exactly outstanding news on tissue engineering. I agree with a commenter above that this may be better suited for Did You Know. --Küñall (talk) 05:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose . According to Slate, the procedures were done years ago when the women were teens, and what is in the news is that upon follow-up the women report that they have been having good use of the vaginas, if you catch the drift. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's true, but now is when the procedure was proven effective and made its way into a medical journal. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seconded - Medical studies are often announced at a time delay as confidentiality and verification are issues inherent to the field.77.101.41.108 (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be okay with posting if there was an article that was any good. But at the moment the vaginal transplantation is total garbage. For one thing, these are not transplants, so the title is wrong. The stub says zilch about the technology, the underlying medical condition, or any of the Five Ws (and an H) of good reporting. It further embarrasses Wikipedia with entirely useless text such as "Their work was published in The Lancet." which should be handled be the ref system. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've worked on the article. If you have a better title, let me know - the lab-grown penis is covered at penis transplantation and reliable sources are referring to it as a vagina transplant so I didn't know what else to call it.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I withdraw my oppose, since the article now covers person-to-person transplants and allografts with sufficient detail. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - This seems like a pretty significant development in tissue engineering - this is the construction of an organ that was entirely or largely absent in the studied women. Article is now in OK shape, although I am certainly willing to hear suggestions on how it can improve. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Kathleen Sebelius
Oppose non-top level bureaucratic shuffling. I'm not even sure this is news in the US.128.214.172.225 (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, not really. It's being announced because of the level of the position, of course.  It has long been known she was going to resign. μηδείς (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Not much news value here in Europe. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Secretaries and ministers resign all the time. This one is in the news in the U.S. a bit, but this isn't of the level one expects of ITN.  -- Jayron  32  16:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Newsworthy in the U.S., especially given that her role at HHS put her in charge of overseeing the rollout of Obamacare, but this isn't the sort of story that we post here, because it's only minimally important. Obama's nominee to replace her will have a similar perspective on the health care law. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Are we supposed to put something up everytime a government official resigns? The only thing that would possibly make a resignation notable, is if it were sufficiently high-level enough (like the vice president) and/or it was the result of some scandal/conviction/e.t.c.  Neither is the case here. Redverton (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Sue Townsend

 * Support once article is improved. She's a household name throughout the UK not only for the hugely popular and much-imitated Adrian Mole series, the early novels of which were cutting satire about Britain in the Thatcher era, but also for the gentler humour of The Queen and I. The Daily Mail obituary states she was the best-selling novelist of the 1980s (I assume in the UK).. The article needs substantial work referencing. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Per above.Somchai Sun (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Per the above. Lets hope the BBC now repeats the TV series, instead of showing rubbish such as Miranda...  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead
 * Support RD. There is no indication that her death itself is noteworthy. GoldenRing (talk) 08:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support for RD per above. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per EA above, RD only though. Black Kite (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Clarify: Although 68 is not particularly old, Townsend had been in ill health for a long time so it wasn't completely unexpected that she died at this age. RD. --Somchai Sun (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * note article is not updated and short of citations, User:ThaddeusB since your most active on maintaining the standards (thankfully) please take note.Lihaas (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not ready,per Lihaas - there is an organe tag, many tags, and the article is pretty stubbish in general.  I some of those supporting could work on the article, it would be appreciated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Looks good to me, fair bit of work done on the article mainly thanks to User:Philip Cross. yorkshiresky (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If someone fixes the lead, I will be happy to post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Lead is quite substantial now. Good to go? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.170.240.10 (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Looks like all problems have been taken care of, no orange tags, no cn tags.  -- Jayron  32  14:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Jim Flaherty

 * If it's a real RD, then no blurb required. I read the article, many [citation needed] tags and a whole section needing better refs, not sure that this guy even qualifies as an RD-notable candidate.  So, all in all, it's an oppose from me.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - and support inclusion in full listing with text similar to "Long serving former Canadian Finance Minister and MP Jim Flaherty dead at the age of 64 one month after resigning as Finance Minister" - we're talking about an long term finance minister from a G8 country and a sitting member of Parliament. Putting it into context, Canada's major networks all broke into regular programming for this news. -- Tawker (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose full blurb for a non-sitting cabinet minister not killed in a misadventure is simply unprecedented. See the Tom Foley nomination.  merely being a high minister doesn't make one top of the field in ministering. Unless there's some special ITN-worthy accomplishment of his in office? μηδείς (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you only oppose a full blurb, or do you also oppose RD? He was practically a sitting cabinet minister, and likely the only reason he did resign was to ensure the stability of the economy. --  Zanimum (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, unless it is indicated why he was out standing in his field. Plenty of non-English speaking ex cabinet ministers die all the time, we don't post them. (List of recently dead ministers) A good comparison would be General Schwartzkopf.  Generals as a class aren't worth posting simply because they are high ranking military officers.  But he ran a brilliant, unprecedented campaign in Iraq and won the war, regardless of what happened after.  Compare this to CIA Head, and Defense Secretary and Energy Secretary James Schlesinger who died two weeks ago without a peep.  Here we have another high raking politician.  But what did he accomplish with that high rank? μηδείς (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Is leading Canada through the ongoing recession and making it the top of the G8 in terms of stability not enough to consider someone at or near the top of their field?


 * Support RD - While he did resign as a cabinet minister last month, Flaherty was still a sitting MP and remained a significant individual within the government. Resolute 19:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment could those keen supporters please spend a few minutes updating the article and fixing the tags please? It won't be posted until then.   19:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support RD Highly influential in Canada. Was the finance minister for many years until just a month ago, and a very consequential minister at that.  And I'm saying this as someone who didn't share his political views.  Death very much unexpected. Redverton (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See above. Please help fix the quality of the article.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support RD: very sudden and tragic death of Canada's Minister of Finance. Played a crucial role as one of the finance ministers of the G20 nations. Helped Canada to become one of the strongest economies in the world during The Great Recession. The story is being covered by international media organizations; it's trending on social media sites as well. 184.146.111.12 (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See above. Please help fix the quality of the article.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Article has been cleaned up, issue tags removed accordingly. Rambling Man, do you want to add to RD or shall I?  -- Tawker (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Much better that I don't, as usual I'll be berated for posting something that I've commented on. Thanks for the opportunity. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD - I tend to belong to the sofixit crowd and just prefer to 'get er done' where consensus has been reached -- Tawker (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Pull It is grossly inappropriate and a violation of WP:INVOLVED for an administrator to post a nomination they have expressed strong support for after less than three hours of discussion and without unanimity (I have no problem with admins posting nominations they've commented on after lengthy discussion and when the consensus is absolutely clear, as TRM sometimes does). Moreover, I'm not convinced that the article quality is sufficient. There are still issues with the article - there are statements that should have citations that don't, references that are dead, and material that seems POV (both for and against him, in different parts of the article). POV and undue weight issues raise BLP concerns as well (recently dead people are still covered, of course). I'm inclined to support Flaherty for RD on the merits, but we should take some more time to look at and deal with the issues with the article. Neljack (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with the criticism. Admins posting an article they supported and so quickly is unseemly in the extreme. Other admins here take pains not to do this. We've already discussed at length and this year that we don't post non-unanimous nominations so quickly--the consensus was 12 hours to get a world-wide perspective. μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Undone - per criticism (although I do wonder why nobody posted on my talk page expressing concern...), I do note that the objective here is recent, and I do not see the benefit to extensive delays. Per TRM's comment I had taken it that it was looking in fine shape to post. With that being said, I believe there was enough valid concern to reverse the change for now.  -- Tawker (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - notable and sitting politician, unexpected sudden death. By the way, where are these hidden "rules" that an article can't have any citation needed tags? Consensus is consensus, and half the point should be that we attract editors who are knowledgeable about these recent events who could improve the article. Doesn't make sense. The RD criteria states that an article should be B-class or higher, but the discussion on that provision was far from any consensus. The only other text I can find alluding to this is at In the news, which mentions that articles with red/orange banners MIGHT not get posted, and that the updated section is where the concern rests with citations. In either case, the community opinion outweighs the precedence. After all, consensus can change, right? So, this should be posted to RD. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  23:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sure this will be posted once the article concerns are addressed. The consensus is overwhelmingly for that once those issues are addressed. μηδείς (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note to all, there are very few barelinks left. Just two now, and some of the links pointing to government websites explaining certain finance department programs have been replaced with news coverage. --  Zanimum (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Barelinks... nope, not in the criteria. The consensus is overwhelmingly that this should be posted, now, not when the "concerns" are addressed. A minority is holding it up on the illusion of some rule that prevents it. Can anybody using these grounds please point out the location of that rule? Otherwise, post it. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  00:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not only rude, it's ridiculous. No one here has opposed this except me, and myself not on quality issues.  Don't impute some sort of conspiracy.  Quality issues are not a side matter.  And we certainly don't need to be breaking policy procedure for this nominaion as if it were Michael Jackson or Margaret Thatcher. μηδείς (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Those claiming it can't be posted due to some unwritten rule should add their vote. I have nothing against a "Oppose until article is improved". But if you aren't going to vote oppose, don't bring up a silent rule, provide no evidence that it exists, and then call me rude for playing the devil's advocate. Show me the money! Say it with me one time, Jerry. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  01:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't bother about certain editor who have nothing positive bu tmerely irrational to contributeLihaas (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's Lihaas' Diff vandalization of another editor's credit as nominator. Apparently my bringing this up has deranged his ability to write grammatical sentences.  But at least he didn't revert my correction. μηδείς (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support He was an important minister in both the Harper and Harris administrations, as well as a prominent politician in his own right. We do not know if his previous condition played a role in his death.  But he was important and should be mentioned.  TFD (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - influential high-ranking politician of a major country. -Zanhe (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed the remaining barelinks. -Zanhe (talk) 03:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Posted - for the record the "unwritten rule" (which is actually written) is that an article that has orange maintenance tags, or reasonably could have them, is in eligible for ITN. In this case, a BLP ref improve was reasonable earlier in the day.  Thanks for improving the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] A. N. R. Robinson

 * Weak Oppose non-sitting and otherwise non-notable politician of a small state with little reader interest. Perhaps notable enough to bump Kumba Lala. μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, when article properly referenced. Perhaps more notable for his role in proposing the International Criminal Court than as a head of state of such a small country. The article needs work on referencing, though. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly someone who made a significant contribution or impact in his country, per Death Criterion #1. He broke that 30-year reign of the People's National Movement by winning the 1986 election; he was held hostage along with most of his ministers in a coup attempt, during which he was beaten and shot in the leg after defying instructions from his captors to order the army to stop firing and instead ordering them to "attack with full force"; he was instrumental in Tobago being given greater autonomy through the creation of the Tobago House of Assembly; as President he caused controversy by refusing to approve some nominations for senators from the Prime Minister and then by appointing the Leader of the Opposition as Prime Minister after an election where the government and opposition each won half the seats; and he made the proposal that led to the creation of the International Criminal Court. How he can be dismissed as "non-notable" is beyond me. Neljack (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak support the RD is perfectly notable, but the article itself needs a few more references. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak support for RD; former head of state, started the process to create the ICC, meets DC1 and possibly 2. As TRM states, however, article does need more references. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support pending the necessary improvements above. Former head of state, significant importance, that he was from Africa helps combat systemic bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per the comments above. An important international figure. The article isn't exactly a "feature article," but that doesn't make the news any less notable. Mvblair (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose until article is improved. It (properly) has an orange tag which is normally considered an automatic disqualifier. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * support per precedenbce. Only one section is missing cites, but the update on this is there.
 * note I added sources but its likely copied from here and this had verbatim language from our post.Lihaas (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you added sources you know to be bad, then why is this ready? That accomplishes nothing... -- Jayron  32  16:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Its an RS source (and the original content from there IS reliable). Just the lazy media not doing its own background work. I also removed more than 1k bytes that were merely copy+pasted and left only the more ntoabke stuff that was in anothe link.Lihaas (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, the precedent is that articles with oraneg level tags are normally not posted. It is even written right into the ITN instructions: "Articles that are subject to serious issues, as indicated by 'orange'- or 'red'-level article tags, will not normally be accepted for an emboldened link."  If there is a copyright problem - and you correctly identified that there is - then there is absolutely no way this is going to be posted as is. --16:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten to remove the organe tag when i added the sources. BTW- the copyright is not from WP, it was the other way around. As for the new link with the MP stuff, I have removed some stuff (and added some stuff).Lihaas (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * BOLDly marked ready per this. If not then challenge it, im fine.Lihaas (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you are mistaken. Both the Wikipedia and the newspaper article are copied form the parliament website (the link I gave in the copyright tag).  It is definitely a real copyright violation on our part, and unfortunately most of the article is affected (and has been since 2010). --ThaddeusB (talk)


 * Not ready per . – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * User:ThaddeusB, now?Lihaas (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Posted - good work getting the article into shape guys. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Nominating the Champions League quarter finals.
This has to be more culturally significant than college basketball in America, that no one else on the planet even cares about. For the United States, we are talking about 5% of the population of planet earth. The rest of it was watching the champions league. In world football, you basically have the second legs of the quarters, on two separate days. Then you have the second legs of the semis. Then you have the final. In world football, and indeed world sport, these are easily top 10 events outside of an olympic / world cup year imho. What level of football do you have to get to, to be up there with college basketball? world cup final? world cup semi final? Champions league semi final? You have up to 228 million people watching these events, and they dont get a mention, but college sports in Americas 5% of the planet homeland do? Wikipedia suggests nothing about college basketball... Suggested events - NBA Finals Men's FIBA World Championship Euroleague Basketball Expected stories per year: 3 in Olympic and odd-numbered years, 2 otherwise 77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per POINTy and offensive nomination. I don't know what you are looking at, but there are nine association football items on ITN/R, including The Champions League finals.  To suggest the quarter finals of any tournament in isolation are one of the top 10 events worldwide across all sports is ridiculous. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Was this pointy and offensive? I couldn't understand it well enough to come to that conclusion, and thought maybe it was a misplaced talk page comment, not a nomination. μηδείς (talk) 04:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * P.S. "the rest of the world" also includes Asia, Africa, South America, and Australia, most of which care little about European football. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks ThaddeusB. You just beat me to it regarding the rest of the world. Such uninformed parochialism never helps a nomination, no matter where it's from. Where I live, for example, "football" means something entirely different, just as it does in the United States. HiLo48 (talk) 04:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose, sounds like the nominator is bent out of shape about his country being slighted somehow on a webpage. Nationalism has led to horrendous wars and genocides, and it has no place on Wikipedia. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose pointless IP nomination.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 06:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Murrysville stabbing

 * Wait - I've been watching this story, and because right now we have no idea the motives behind it, in addition to these being not-lethal injures (to date), it might not be anything. But if it was premeditated (as opposed to a spur-of-the-moment thing), that might make this story more ITN-appropriate. --M ASEM (t) 15:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Wait/comment - 1) Too early to tell whether this is ITN material indeed. 2) Why nominate something if you think it's not going to get in? Bit pointless, and seems to be a dig at the system of ITN. I assume this is partly tongue in cheek, given your point about it not being posted because it's in the US (as the opposite is of course true). All in all, rather odd nomination! Fgf10 (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is partly tongue in cheek, Fgf10. However, I am also nominating it because there is a very small chance it might actually get featured. And I'm not sure that tons of US stuff gets posted on ITN, given that on the main page I see a French-British racehorse, a boat race between two British colleges, and Australia and Sri Lanka winning a cricket tournament, and only one thing that specifically mentions the US. And this doesn't even begin to touch on the fact that the Fort Hood shooting was opposed by almost everyone. Jinkinson   talk to me  15:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe this one can get more support because it was a stabbing rather than shooting spree. The Brits here are tired of how we can't learn to use our guns constructively. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I will note that using the present distribution of stories at ITN to judge if there needs to be a story from another region is not appropriate, even from a basic statistical basis. This story may have merits at ITN if it more than just "student gets angry, lashes out at others at spur of moment with knife" which is why waiting to see exactly what went down is needed. --M ASEM  (t) 16:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that we should wait a little while before deciding whether to post this or not, since if it does have an impact it won't happen this soon. Also, I wasn't citing the current ITN stuff to show that we need to post more US stuff, I was just trying to explain that Fgf10 is wrong when he implies that tons of US stuff gets posted. I might also note that apparently ZunZuneo, Brendan Eich resigning, and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission being decided all happened in the US and were all dismissed as not important enough for ITN. Jinkinson   talk to me  16:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Can ITN go two weeks without someone accusing the place of having a conspiracy against American nominations? Redverton (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The examples you cited had very little news value, which is of course the reason they weren't posted. No conspiracy there! Fgf10 (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - What is the main draw behind posting this story? That, instead of yet another U.S. school rampage involving a gun, a knife was used instead? Not a very sturdy basis for ITN, I would say. --WaltCip (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Close Once again, we get a pointy, insulting nomination from Jinkinson. There's no support for this.  There won't be any books, any memorials. A year from now this will have been forgotten.  It's not encyclopedic. μηδείς (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose/close per Medeis. I would oppose this if it happened in my own country or anywhere else, just like I would oppose the UK smog (missed that one) & the UK flooding in Feb.--Somchai Sun (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose/close - sorry if I sound cold but this is not a story for ITN. I might had supported it if it had happened anywhere else but in the US were these kind of school massacres are almost a monthly thing these days. However I do not oppose the article itself as it has some national intention etc.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well then. I'm sorry for getting cynical after such a large number of my previous nominations failed. Of course, the reason this has happened is the same reason this is getting such a negative response--because I don't have much experience doing this kind of stuff. Another reason I made this nomination was, as I said above, to try to find out if more deaths from an event means the event is more likely to be featured.


 * So I acknowledge that my nom was rather pointy (at least at first), as Medeis states, and for that I do sincerely apologize. I'll try to be less cynical and flippant in the future. Nevertheless it needs to be considered that, regardless of whose fault it was, one reason I nominated this in the obnoxious way I did was because a large number of my previous nominations failed. Jinkinson   talk to me  18:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * As far as I am aware, most nominations fail, and most good potential nominations have already been posted once you get here to add them yourself. Constructive comments, reviewing other people's nominations to check if they are updated and otherwise qualified and adding refs to nominations that need them are great helps, and you can get credit as an updater quite easily, since we always have a rush to nominate, but few people actually like to do the work, even on their own nominations. Act in good faith and you will be treated in good faith. μηδείς (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose not in the news anywhere in my locality, is this more significant than any other attack in the US? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose as no one died and it happened in the US.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Watch out Lugnuts. User:AlexTiefling will be around shortly to berate you for you ad hominem attack. μηδείς (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose There's certainly no relationship of direct proportionality, but the number of deaths is highly relevant - does anyone doubt that this would be a bigger news story if all the people who were stabbed had died? Neljack (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

[Admin assessment needed] Windows XP support ends

 * Oppose MS made it well clear this day was coming for months, compared to the sudden discovery of the Heartbleed security problem. Note that this doesn't mean XP suddenly fails, just that MS will not update it any more, so only if a new security hole is found would this become significant. --M ASEM (t) 12:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support This is the right time to post this. We don't post elections, we post results; in the same way, I think this is the right day for this story.  And "only if" a new security hole is found?  Meant to be a joke, surely?  GoldenRing (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In the case of a tech story that can affect millions - akin to the ssl hole - the point to announce this as ITN is when it is affirmed it is happened, that is, back when MS stated they were closing down XP support so that people could actually do something about it. That is the result, even though it was fully done yesterday; this is equivalent to us announcing the sentence of a criminal irregardless of appeals, delayed incarceration, etc. I did check and I don't see anyone bringing it up then, unfortunately (There was one when win 7 was announced, in 2009, on the preseumption XP support would end at some point). Now yes, MS could have set a date and then later changed or cancelled it, but still the important fact was that closure was announced and coming soon, not after the fact. --M ASEM  (t) 14:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Big in IT news. --bender235 (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment "and the end of support means that security-critical problems will no longer be fixed" Have you tried switching your machine off and then switching it back on again?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 14:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support.-- jcn John Chen  (Talk-Contib.) RA 14:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - significant milestone for one of the most popular (and longest lived) OSes in history. I modified the blurb to link directly to the relevant section. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. It's interesting, perhaps unexpected, that more than a quarter of computers are still using XP. The BBC has been expounding on the significant cost for small businesses. If this had been proposed when it was first announced it would probably have been shot down to wait for the actual date, in case of postponements. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Blurb note, both suggested blurbs above are inaccurate. Neither says within desktop operating systems and the blurb should do or else they are incorrect. So ' the desktop operating system still used on' or 'the world's second most popular desktop operating system'. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 18:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought of that as soon as I shut down my computer. Have made the change. Smurrayinchester 20:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support it should have its own obituary, an RD of extraordinary wide-reaching significance. Yes, we knew it was going to pass away, but the day has arrived and we should mourn the loss of Microsoft's best effort by a mile. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose this is far less newsworthy than Microsoft wants people to believe it is. This was known years in advance and doesn't actually have any noteworthy long-term effects except for Microsoft continuing to stuff Windows 8 down people's throats. Windows XP hasn't ceased to exist or be useful, it just won't get first-party patches or support anymore, which it rarely did anyway. &mdash; <span style="color:#666 !important;">TORTOISE  WRATH  19:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Which it rarely did anyway" I'm sorry, but that is patently false. Even the April 2014 patches had XP fixes included . Windows XP was one of the longest running operating systems in history, and the large exposure of internet connected machines is what makes this newsworthy. Your opinion on Windows 8 is staggeringly irrelevant. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per User:TortoiseWrath. This isn't news, it is arbitrary intentional obsolescence unless you pay as a corporate marketing strategy.  A dam hasn't failed--it is being blown up on purpose, but you can pay a protection racket if you still want water. μηδείς (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment it's certainly well known that this was going to happen, but we're in a new age where operating systems move on day by day. XP is truly significant, as captured in the article and above.  It was the OS that no-one really moved on from until Windows 7, a decade later, and even then, XP continues to operate in mission-critical systems.  The valedictory for XP is worthy of a brief "thanks and bye" blurb on Wikipedia, hell five years ago, probably 50% of people looking at Wikipedia were doing it on an XP platform.  This isn't about sucking up to Microsoft's obsolescence programme, in fact, they've proved time and time again that they're not actually very good at this, but the farewell to XP is similar to the farewell to Windows NT or MS DOS, it's massively significant in the world, significant to just about everyone on earth (even though many don't know it).  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * But XP isn't "leaving" or "dying." It's going to remain in use for ages, just as previous versions of Windows did. Plenty of enterprises, in particular, still use Windows 3.1 or 2000. All that's changing is a corporation's choice to arbitrarily push updates to it, something that continues to be done by other companies. &mdash; <span style="color:#666 !important;">TORTOISE  WRATH  21:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Plenty of enterprises, in particular, still use Windows 3.1" --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose There is simply no significance in this announcement unless we see that it really exerts strong effects on the Windows XP users. Please also understand that Windows XP doesn't cease and all the comments above solidarising with Microsoft's efforts to exaggerate the importance of this news are not helpful. We're lucky to have the OpenSSL story on the main page which is incomparably more serious and important than a single decision made by Microsoft coming into force.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose; XP isn't dead and gone, or otherwise withdrawn from use, it just is not being supported any longer by its maker. 331dot (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No; I think the point is that it should be dead and gone, because there will be no further security updates for it. Unfortunately, as you say, it isn't; 25% or so of the world's desktop computers still use it.  This is news, and news that really needs to get to people. GoldenRing (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose More symbolic than having significant impact.  Spencer T♦ C
 * I just don't get how you can think like that. When the operating system used by a quarter of PCs out there suddenly no longer receives security updates, how can that have no impact? GoldenRing (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. Just because an event is predictable doesn't mean it shouldn't be reported. Opening and closing ceremonies of an Olympics occur regularly on ITN. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - to me it seems more important to mention that Microsoft will no longer provide official updates or bug fixes than to mention 27%. starship.paint   "YES!" 13:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * oppose we are no MS' marketing tool. Its not the system has ended eitherLihaas (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support This is big news for small businesses. Windows XP was the dominating OS for about a decade, and even up until very recently continued to have a majority of the market share in countries such as Japan and China. --Tocino 08:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Win XP is the largest desktop operating system as has been mentioned in this thread. Ergo, I do find this notable. EOL is the largest single event in the lifespan of a software product after its release, and if WIn XP was now first released and we knew how popular it would become, we would sure post it, right? Opposes of the line "it was pre-announced" make no sense to me – of course it was pre-announced! Most elections are pre-announced and we still post them. If we would ever post it, this is the time. Article and the specific section are of high quality with excellent sourcing. --hydrox (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * By the numbers 11 support, 7 opposes. I won't attempt to weigh the strength of arguments since I commented by I think it is fair to ask an uninvolved admin to take a look. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support for RD per The Rambling Man. Re Lihaas, Kiril Simeonovski and μηδείς comments above, yes this is a conscious decision made by Microsoft, yes it's intentional obsolescence, but if anything I think it paints Microsoft in a bad light, not a good one. I don't see it as a PR puff piece. If we put it in RD, that shows a slight sense of humour (why not?) as well as allowing the item to go on the page blurbless - which really it might as well, since the news is just that the OS is now deceased. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, seriously, the arguments here are getting twisted and weird. This can't be put into RD! And planned obsolescence is routine. The fact is that people will still be able to get their computer needs taken care of by other vendors, or by updating to a different OS. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Stuart Parkin awarded Millennium Technology Prize

 * Comment - the most likely target article, Stuart Parkin, is tagged for insufficient citations. That will need addressed before item can be posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Have updated the article now with hopefully enough citations. --Jopo (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, once citations fixed. Sources suggest it's a large & prestigious technology prize. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - article is now in acceptable condition. Based on the news stories I've looked at, this does appear to be a prestigious award worthy of posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose as of now. Is this Technology Academy Finland prize truly the largest in the world?  What are its competitors?  And who were Parkins competitors for the prize, since other nominees are no listed.  The article reads like a vague and self-promoting press release.  This year's prize itself is one item in a list.  Even the Hugo and Nebula Award articles for science fiction list the alternative nominees for each year. μηδείς (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The selection process of the award is explained here. I'm not sure whether the selection committee publishes the other nominees or not. The New York Times called it "the world's largest technology prize" in 2004 . --Jopo (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, there are an awful lot of awards out there. No sources have been provided saying this prize is particularly prestigious, and prestige is not the measure that ITN uses, it's whether or not the item is in the news. I don't see it on the BBC's front page at all, nor the The Guardian's. The update for the present winner is unacceptable; it reads like either copyvio or just painfully hagiographic. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The Guardian called the award "prestigious" and The New York Times has called it "the world's largest technology prize" . --Jopo (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Journalists have the bad habit of unauditedly copying information from Wiki nowadays. And guess what, that information was self-referencing and didn't even exist at the website. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 08:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What information does not exist at which website? (Off-topic: So let me get this straight, we need citations from reliable sources such as well-established news outlets (as per WP:Reliable) but when those sources are referenced they are not to be trusted since they are written by journalists? ;) --Jopo (talk) 09:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Neutral I haven't looked in detail at the concerns but there are two maintenance tags on the prize article that need to be addressed. The Parker article is adequate.  The prize is clearly notable, coverage in the mainstream press here along with a million euros shouldn't be sniffed at. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose As I'm myself leading the branch of a research institute and get to read and know a lot about the physicist's envelope, I can assure this prize isn't all that important. Not important enough to get posted at ITN. Besides, the articles clearly lack the quality. They need to be improved. All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Frankly, Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering actually has a larger prize money. Though it was only established in 2013, and the sources that say this Finnish prize is the largest one all date from before that. --hydrox (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: The Ultimate Warrior

 * Support This is my first time participating in a discussion like this as well, so forgive me if I'm missing something. This nomination does seem to fit In_the_news criteria 2, as far as I can tell.  Numerous sources provided by Starship describe Warrior (Warrior was his legal name) as being one of the most recognizable in his profession, being a former WWF Champion.  Also headlined the WWE Hall of Fame just days before his death.LM2000 (talk) 07:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah yes. I forgot to mention: "The Ultimate Warrior" is his "stage name" and WP:COMMONNAME. He had his real name changed to "Warrior". starship.paint   "YES!" 07:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment reasonable article, but a maintenance tag indicating some missing references in the "In wrestling" section, could those be addressed? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Done. It had been chopped in half in tonight's all-out blockbuster editing melee extravaganza. EDIT: Oh sorry, I thought you were referring to the red error message in ==References==.  Dunno about that other stuff!— Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 08:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support as notable in his field(whatever you refer to it as). The nom states it is for RD but where the death was sudden and unexpected (was 54) should the blurb be posted? 331dot (talk) 09:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Purely based on his popularity in his field, I think he's big enough for an RD but I have to admit he doesn't seem huge enough for a blurb... not on the level of Hulk Hogan, Vince McMahon, Ric Flair etc. starship.paint   "YES!" 15:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Very weak support As a wrestling fan, I'm not entirely sure if he's quite over the threshold of notability for RD. But, with that being said, his fame did come during one of the biggest periods in wrestling history and his death is getting massive coverage. -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  12:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Headlined major events in his prime, a recent inductee into WWE's hall of fame. Speaks to his importance in the field. Given his legal change of name I assume the listing should be "Warrior", piped to the article? GRAPPLE   X  13:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Disagree that he should be listed under his legal name. His ring/stage name of Ultimate Warrior is the WP:COMMONNAME that people knew him by. The five reliable sources reporting his death all used "Ultimate Warrior" in the titles. starship.paint   "YES!" 15:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support for RD per all of the above. Name should read The Ultimate Warrior because that's the most familiar name to most readers.  -- Jayron  32  13:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support for RD. Sources describe him as one of the most prolific WWE wrestlers of all time. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 13:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support RD: One of the top in his field, at a time when said field was considerably large and had a wide following. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support RD I remember him from the late 80's. He was "top of his field", and was just recognized as top of his field the other day. The article is in okay shape, though there are citation needed tags and the info on the last few days of his life (Wrestlemania XXX for instance) are repeated. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not ready/oppose - based on approximately 10 in the article, it could easily be tagged with a (disqualifying) BLP ref improve tag.  Please address as many of these as possible before posting.--ThaddeusB (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD - my concern has been met and consensus is there, so I am posting this to RD now. If consensus emerges for a full blurb, it can be upgraded at that time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Post-posting Support RD ...just to make the point that, while I aggressively opposed the posting of an event in the script the other day, this guy has obviously been a long term, successful performer in this field. HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not arguing for including the streak, but it lasted almost four times longer than The Ultimate Warrior did (WWF-wise). Most of his notability comes from a single match, where he was scripted/boooked to end Hulkamania. As far as real success, the streak undoubtedly drew many millions more dollars. But yeah, as far as really ending goes, there's a clear difference here. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support RD and blurb  There are a lot of wrestlers, but very few so mainstream as Warrior. I think the sources speak for themselves on that. WrestleMania VI was, as Gorilla Monsoon would say, indeed a happening. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait, no. Support new blurb. Something mentioning the proximity to his return after 18 years, or his ominous final promo. That's what makes the death itself notable. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Post-posting Support, blurb opposed This was big enough it made front page news in the US this morning. I have always opposed every wrestling nom we've had.  But this seems good for RD.  A blurb, however, absent extra-genre awards, would be absurb. μηδείς (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * He was the 1984 National Physique Committee Mr. Georgia, if that's worth anything. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think someone's having a teeny laugh at our expense here. But, for the record, for what it's worth, I oppose a blurb, basically on WP:SNOW grounds.  GoldenRing (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Assuming it's me your alluding to, no, I was entirely sincere in my comment. If the typo's the reason, I noticed it after submitting and thought it amusing enough not to bother correcting. μηδείς (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I just noticed it. Good rhyme. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, my apologies μηδείς, that was not aimed at you but was meant to go under a different !vote - but I can't figure out which now. Possibly the one above yours, I'm not sure now.  GoldenRing (talk) 09:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Oldest cardiovascular system found

 * Support. I agree this seems to be a notable scientific discovery, and it's being widely covered. 331dot (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Awaiting confirmation from local "hype" doubter. Per 331dot, "seems" legit and worth posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose this claim has nothing to do with finding the first animal that had a heart. Molluscs, annelids, vertebrates, and dozens of other animal phyla which did not descend from any arthropod had hearts, which was a trait inherited from a much deeper common ancestor much older than this fossil.  All this is about is what fossils we have found which have preserved which traits.  It's like walking into a poorly lit library with a million volumes, and pulling a John Grisham book off the only shelf you can find in the dark and announcing this book from 1992 is the earliest mystery novel yet found. μηδείς (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Neutral The problem here is that the claim made in the blurb (and I must admit, in the titles of the source articles) are far more interesting than what is really being claimed. What we have here is the oldest fossil which has evidence of a circulatory system.  That's NOT really confirming anything.  As Medeis notes, we know for certain that older animals than this specimen had circulatory systems.  Many taxa of living organisms are known to be older than this which are also known to have circulatory systems.  However, those taxa lack hard parts, and so leave less interesting fossil traces.  This discovery doesn't actually confirm anything we didn't already know.  It's mildly interesting, but not a landmark discovery in the sense of "changing what we know about anything".  -- Jayron  32  19:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's a traditional family tree of all the animals more advanced than jelly fish. The arthropods are at the end of the branch on the top right.  The chordates (vertebrates and close kin) are at the bottom.  Every single animal group shown has a cardiovascular system except a few parasitic groups like the tapeworms which don't need them, and hence have lost them. This shows how misleading a simple reading of the claim is, and its ultimate superficiality. μηδείς (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the commentary, and Medeis' excellent analogy, I've proposed a more correct alternative blurb. Stephen 00:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The blurb would be correct if it said the "so-far" oldest "known" fossilized cardiovascular.... I'd still oppose, as we already know these and more primitive creatures had them, and this is no huge revelation even within the arthropods. It in no way compares to, say, the entirely unexpected discovery that the early flying bird-relative Microraptor gui had four wings.  It is an unremarkable heart in an animal we knew had a heart and developed from a long line of animals we knew had hearts. μηδείς (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I should, I suppose, apologize. I think this nomination is a lot more relevant than others that I oppose but recently haven't spoken up about.  And as a matter of secret vices, I'd probably be happy if this got posted with a properly-qualified blurb.  So my thanks and apologies to the nominator and supporters.  My sole concern is that we shouldn't have uninformed supports here, for what is likely to be a short-standing and historically quite minor development. WWSJGD? μηδείς (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Significantly better referencing is required; one can't even begin to assess the potential significance of this based on "Yahoo Bews" coverage. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Although this is not particularly "hype-y", I fail to see any lasting impact upon the field. Paleontology and archeology are not about "oldest" or "biggest" discoveries. What researchers are doing is attempting to (dis)prove hypotheses about the natural world. There are plenty of amazing discoveries coming out of those Chinese fossil beds, so a more ITN-worthy one will be along soon. Abductive  (reasoning) 14:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Costa Rican general election, 2014

 * Is this in the news? Still needs to be, even if ITNR. 331dot (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See also This nomination further down. --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the Presidential election, technically different than the general election(both ITNR though); but if and when posted the blurbs could be combined. 331dot (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Suggest nominations are merged before further consideration. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Just another suggestion. In the case of legislatures, can we say "Wins the most seats" or "Wins the most votes"  As an American, I recognize and use a word like "plurality" and have no problem understanding it, but I know it causes ENGVAR problems with other varieties of English.  It would be best to avoid that word, and "the most" carries the same meaning.  -- Jayron  32  01:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Excellent suggestion Jayron. Thank you. HiLo48 (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - This nomination makes the nomination I put in the other day redundant. Perhaps change the text to: 66-years of presidential two-party rule ends as Luis Guillermo Solís is elected president of Costa Rica, while the National Liberation Party maintains the most seats. Mvblair (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] OpenSSL "heartbleed" bug

 * Nom. I know most of our readers are tech-illiterate and won't grasp the magnitude of this, but I think we have to post it anyways. The current blurb suggestion is a bit awkward, so I'm open for suggestions. --bender235 (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. I just updated my own server. This is a huge bug. Thue (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support: I think the guy quoting this as "the biggest bug since SQL injection" has it on the money; this is possibly the biggest tech news in some time. Like goto fail;, but a million times more severe. Sceptre (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support a serious tech story that warrants rapid inclusion on our main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. I know little about this tech issue, but it seems to me that any tech issue affecting "half the Internet" would be significant enough to post. 331dot (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I have revised the blurb. It previously claimed that over half of servers were affected, but the actual figure is around 17% . --hydrox (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That still seems a high percentage relative to the worldwide Internet. I still support. 331dot (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This # should be in the blurb to emphasis the significance (assuming this is the best, most reliable estimate): "...leaving an estimate 17% of the Internet's secure servers..." is a much stronger statement than just "large number". --M ASEM (t) 19:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's more than 17%, according to several experts. . --bender235 (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We can always say "an estimated minimum of 17% of secure Internet servers", which is still significant. --M ASEM (t) 20:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That 17% figure is probably quite accurate. Your first source makes no mention of % that I can see, and the second source is a tweet mentioning that 30% support TLS 1.2, while certainly only some part of those installations were ever vulnerable. Actually, most OpenSSL installations were never vulnerable thanks to conservative sysadmins (the bug was only in the latest 1.0.1 version) --hydrox (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd support that wording. "Large number" is rather vague and may be a sensationalist fearmongering. Brandmeistertalk  21:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I added the 17% figure to the article as well. Netcraft is a pretty respected authority in this type of web analytics, so I am okay with posting the 17% figure in the blurb. --hydrox (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a case of false accuracy. "17%" accounts only for web servers, but not mail servers and other internet services. --bender235 (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support As the issue will not be resolved overnight (since it requires both the fix and the redeployment), this is a major security issue in the news and is being appropriately covered. --M ASEM (t) 19:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The current text in the linked section is horrible. I happen to understand a good deal of the consequences, and I can't recognize it in that section. Thue (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I confirm this. Unfortunately, I don't have time to fix it now. --bender235 (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I put in a few updates, I hope it's a bit more sensible now. --hydrox (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Potentially one of the most severe security vulnerabilities in Internet history. --hydrox (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support This is a major security flaw. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Suggested update regarding this WMF accouncement: "As an extra precaution, we recommend all users change their passwords as well." Should we add that somehow? --bender235 (talk) 10:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is my opinion that we should leave giving such advise to the WMF IT team only. They have the tools and expertise for orderly informing the users of any such technical issues. Asking users to change their password in an ITN blurb might raise more questions than answer them. --hydrox (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean we should give any advise in ITN, but mention something like: "[...] affects large number of web servers, including Wikimedia's". --bender235 (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support and proposal - A standalone article, Heartbleed bug, has been created for the subject. Should we update ITN to link to the separate article? Mz7 (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Done. Thue (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Request ITN credit I am requesting ITN credit for User:Abdulwrites. His first article and first edit have hit ITN. Very rarely I see this. -- Tito ☸ Dutta 02:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Please feel free to post the template on anyone deserving's talk page yourself in the future. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Aswan tribal clashes

 * Support A significant event that our readers otherwise might well not hear about. Neljack (talk) 06:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * note it occurred at least 3 days ago.Lihaas (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In each day there were deadly clashes. There's a three-day truce now as an attempt for reconciliation, but things might get ugly again (I hope not). Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose reasonable stub article, not seeing this prominently in any news outlets I use, but that's not entirely surprising. What's the impact beyond tribal clashes?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The ethnic side of it should be taken into account and might have a future impact in the region. Note that the article is partially developed now and it is still under expansion. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] NCAA championship

 * I think that your case would be bolstered if you could provide sources that explain that US basketball does not have minor leagues or lower divisions, so that the college teams act as more than university play. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, "The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is the 'de facto' minor league for basketball" ; "[college basketball] is the greatest minor league system in the world" ; "NCAA basketball is now officially the NBA's farm system" --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a NBA Development League which serves as a minor league, just FYI. 331dot (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the D-league (one of the provided sources is about how NCAA is better than D-league)... Among college players who don't make the NBA, some of the best go to the D-league, but others go to European or Australian pro-leagues.  It isn't clear that the "Development" league is even the best route for players done with college to develop into NBA talent. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Enormous cultural impact. Additionally, college basketball is not limited to only American players. For example, UConn has players from Ghana, Jamaica, Germany, and the whole list of international players that participated in the tournament can be found here.  Spencer T♦ C 02:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's not get too carried away here. Those international players would not be there if they weren't being paid to be there, in what is officially an amateur competition. The farcical "scholarship" system doesn't help the image of this competition. HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You think this is farcical, you should read this. Everyone who doubts how seriously Americans take college sports should read that. Note that basketball is even more popular than football in North Carolina (probably) and has ~85% fewer athletes to subsidize. Also, in case you don't know, the they can't be given more sugar than what's needed to attend the college (except from family) so no beer or car buying money or solid gold basketballs (though solid gold locker room hottubs would be allowed, if anyone did that. I'm not kidding) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know some Australians who got an American college education through their sporting talent. None would have made it into an Australian university. Nice people. Good at their sport. Bloody lucky! HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * At least they finished. Some play as little as 1 year and then join the NBA. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per nom, though I suspect that people unfamiliar with it will see "it isn't professional" and thus will oppose without any knowledge of it's relative importance (i.e. more important than the NBA finals). -- Jayron  32  02:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll support due to the argument given above. As pointed out by Spencer, there are players from all over the world. If we posted the Boat Race(which I support) we can do this, too. 331dot (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per all the reasons given by the nominator. One of the few sporting events that draws interest from non-sports fans, with millions of brackets filled out each year. Not to mention the press surrounding Warren Buffett's billion dollar perfect bracket challenge. --  Anc516  (Talk ▪ Contribs) 03:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support reasonably well-covered across the globe. YE <font color="#66666">Pacific Hurricane 03:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For many decades, the NCAA was actually the highest level of basketball recognized by FIBA in the USA, primarily because they're "amateurs". American college kids beat out teams of fully grown European men (who were also "amateurs") in the Olympics. Of course, that isn't the case anymore, but the open era of basketball also made the NCAA tournament international when players from other countries started exploiting college basketball as an alternative way to develop their young basketball players (the Australian Andrew Bogut, and the Panama national basketball team last decade, for example). Nowadays, the NCAA final four games have now become the single largest basketball event in the world, with the semifinals and final having the largest live attendance for the season in basketball. Not even the World Cup (of basketball) next year can boast of having almost 80k people watching a single game in a single venue. Compare, for example, the TV rights of the Premier League in the UK, 1.782 billion pounds for four years or 445 million pounds a year or 3.2 million pounds ($5.3 million) per match; NCAA basketball TV rights in the USA is $10.8 billion dollars for 14 years, or $771 million per year or $11.3 million per game. Granted, the Premier League has plenty of TV rights elsewhere, but this tells you the magnitude of interest for a bunch of college kids playing hoops for "scholarships". – H T  D  03:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support: one of the most watched sporting events in the US and the world. It baffles me why this is not in ITN/R. -Zanhe (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * One of the most watched in the world? Have you seen the audience for cricket in India? I'm not planning on opposing this, but I will still highlight silly claims. HiLo48 (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have the stats handy, but it's probably one of the top 10 most viewed sporting events in the world, which is why CBS and Turner have agreed to pay $11 billion for 14 years of TV coverage for NCAA basketball, compared with $4 billion or so NBC's paying for 10 years worth of Olympics. -Zanhe (talk) 05:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * American money for American sports is not a valid comparison with the size of the audiences for cricket in India. HiLo48 (talk) 06:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And comparing the "value" of an annual competition with one hosted only every four years is pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * True, but I don't understand your point. The Indian Premier League happens every year. HiLo48 (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was talking to Zahne (hence the indent level), and referring to the Olympics. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How's that pointless? NCAA: $11 billion/14 seasons=approx. $780 million per season. Olympics: $4 billion/5 games (including winter)=$800 million per game. I thought people were capable of doing such easy math themselves, so didn't elaborate the first time. -Zanhe (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I would like to point out that the updated article is now of pretty high quality, which hopefully counts for something. (I am happy to take suggestions for improvement though.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per Thaddeus's excellent statement and my own comment from last year. Clearly we do post university sport, given that the Boat Race is up there at the moment, and I'd say this has significantly greater cultural impact and public interest in the US than the Boat Race does in Britain. As someone from a country where university sport is little more than a social pastime, I find the massive interest bemusing, but that's neither here nor there. Ridiculous as the idea of posting a university sports tournament seemed to me at first, sport does not have inherent significance - as Thaddeus says, it is only significant because people care about it - and the amount of passion and interest this tournament generates is truly staggering. Neljack (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Oh you're got to be kidding me. Posted after just 4.5 hours, with just the US evening for voting? Give me a break.... Once again, ITN becomes a joke! Fgf10 (talk) 06:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Pull immediately The same story once again. We agreed on multiple occasions not to post this for many reasons and now it looks like someone was so prudent to nominate it and collect sufficient amount of votes while Europe sleeps and is not able to counterbalance it. This is a classical example of a systemic bias and extreme POV. Bongwarrior has apparently violated the rule of neutral point of view for his selective approach to consider only the votes from users from the other site of the globe and speedily post it without any real discussion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly. There's a clear consensus to post.  Europe has been awake for three or four hours, I see no dissenting voices other than your own.  Should a plethora of opposes appear, then consider pulling.  This was posted just as Tony Benn's RD was posted, quickly and with clear support.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Admins should always wait for a longer time when posting any item, not to talk about one that has been long discussed in prior occasions with no general consensus to post. This is clear avoidance of that rule of thumb and I'd even say that it was deliberately made. Maybe it's time to propose introducing a rule that will prevent such haste in posting ITN items on the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Admins should always wait for a longer time when posting any item" no, not really. There's been no opposition but your own, European editors have been awake and online for six hours, there's no problem here but the one of your own making.  As for implementing a delay, tried that, failed.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * @Kiril - We most certainly never "agreed" to anything. 1) The NCAA Tournament has been posted some years.  2) Some of us Americans felt that the not posting the our beloved NCAA basketball other years was the single greatest injustice on ITN.
 * Those "many reasons" you refer too basically boil down to precisely the one's I listed in the original statement. I attempted to refute those reasons with a strong argument, precisely the same argument I made about the Boat Race 24 hours prior.  Given that we had never posted The Boat Race before and had posted NCAA basketball, I am confident cooler heads would have won out this year and NCAA basketball would have been posted, regardless of timing.  That said. there is precisely nothing wrong me nominating the event (and working extensively on the article) when it occurred.
 * The only "extreme POV" here is your accusation of impropriety. --ThaddeusB (talk) 10:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * support. Well argued Thaddeus.  I can't add more but I've posted arguments in support of this event in years past.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support of a good, consensus-based post. The Australasians were watching this through the day as well as our American friends; not sure why we have to wait for the Europeans to wake up? Stephen 11:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the Europeans have woken up, and have been awake for six or so hours, and no-one's dissenting to this post bar the one clamour for "immediate pulling". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment I didn't express an opinion either supporting or opposing the boat-race nomination and have stayed out of this one. I think ThaddeusB's argument of cultural significance has some merit.  My worry is how it will play out in practice, in two ways.
 * Firstly volume: ITN/R already adds up to ~65 sports stories per year. If we add in all the not-at-the-top-of-the-sport-but-still-really-popular events then that will be a considerable increase - I'm thinking of Manchester City v United, West Coast v Fremantle / Adelaide v Port Adelaide, Ascot, Goodwood, Bristol City v Rovers (for all you Rovers fans out there, yes, both of you!) and so on and so on.  Where do we draw a line here?  AFAICT, the rule of thumb has been that only ITN/R sports stories get posted unless the event is somehow unusual compared to the same event in other years (ie a particularly notable boat race or NCAA final or whatever).  If it's a regular event we're posting only because the event has a particular cultural significance every year then the argument should be happening at ITN/R, not here.  I get the impression that several sports events have fallen by the wayside recently, despite being ITN/R, because "we have too many sports nominations around here."  I'm pretty sure this isn't going to help that situation.
 * Secondly, the 'cultural significance' aspect adds a taste of subjectivity that has previously been absent. It is possible to assess in a fairly objective way which events represent the top of a particular sport; if we accept proposals on the basis that an event is very significant to my particular cultural group, there will be no end to it.  It is impossible to oppose a nomination on these grounds, since all you have to do to establish cultural significance for a group is to claim that it exists; anyone who opposes it is obviously just not part of that particular cultural group that finds it significant.  If we're going to do this for sports then we should do it for other things as well; why not report on the last night of the Proms, or Glastonbury, or Burning Man?  GoldenRing (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything posted at ITN is subjectively judged, including judging what represents the 'highest level' of competition in a sport. The 'cultural significance' aspect of the NCAA tournament can be measured by a few objective measures however, such as viewership figures, google news hits, WP page views, etc.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I do agree that the "cultural" argument needs to take place at ITN/R and will bring it there in good time (generally items need to pass regular ITN before they can even be considered there). Sports do have a big impact on people's lives, and deserve the coverage level they get.  It might be somewhat subjective to say NCAA basketball has an extremely high cultural impact, but it can also be measured in certain ways (some offered in this thread).  It is also somewhat subjective as to what constitutes highest level play in many sports (for example boxing is especially prone to this problem), and other ITN decisions are almost purely subjective.
 * We actually do have at least one item on the current ITN/R list (Japanese baseball) that is definitely not "top level", but is properly included because of its importance to its home country. The most important sport(s) in many countries also happen to be top level and are listed.  However, I have a few ideas to add (none of them American other than this nomination).  There are at least three items (all American events) on the current list that I feel have no real impact that I plan to nominate for removal on the cultural angle.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I give up but will never agree with Thaddeus that this has cultural impact on a high level. It may have only in the United States, which is way far from being something significant. Unfortunately, the English Wikipedia is mostly edited by users from very few countries and this fact will never give us the chance to get rid of local stories in an attempt to creating an impartial and neutral encyclopedia. Evidently, this Wikipedia is nothing better and even worse than the smaller Wikipedias that are infamous for doing the same.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with you, though if pushed to it I'd have to admit ignorance about the cultural impact of the NCAA championship in North America. But I have to say your point is somewhat weakened by your silence on the Boat Race nomination.  If local stories of limited, national cultural impact are the scourge of an impartial and neutral encyclopedia, where were you when the Boat Race was nominated?  GoldenRing (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Having lived for some years in Lexington, Ky., I wouldn't say the "impact" was "cultural." Sca (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm in Australia and have never been to the UK, but I am familiar with the Boat Race. The only place I ever hear of the NCAA championship is here. HiLo48 (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm in the Philippines and this was live on TV; the Boat Race and cricket weren't on TV and the news. – H T  D  12:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec)It says on this page "Please do not complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." If a "local event" is covered significantly enough on a worldwide basis(which this is), it can be posted. 331dot (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, I had never heard of The Boat Race before getting active on Wikipedia. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Me neither, though I would've bet many tens of bucks to win ten that it existed (but not if I had to guess it's name, lol). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support from Europe (if it matters). Important in the US, even though it's not the top level of the sport. I can't see why we shouldn't post this and other similar items of cultural significance (e.g. the Boat Race posted recently). 62.249.160.48 (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support It was wrong not to post the 2013 tourney. Glad to see we've corrected this. Championship in the top level of amateur basketball, major impact, etc. Kudos . – Muboshgu (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've proposed to add NCAA basketball to WP:ITNR. Please participate in the discussion at the ITNR talk page. -Zanhe (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Very nice construction arguments put forward for posting. Nice. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong pull. We have had this discussion many times - amateur university sports are not the top level of competition, and are therefore not suitable for ITN. I wasn't around for the discussion of the boat race, but would have opposed that (and will advocate pulling); if I was being uncharitable I would suspect it was a stalking horse. 'Cultural significance' is neither here nor there. The timing of the nomination meant it was posted by the time anyone in Europe woke up, meaning that very few people outside the US had a chance to comment. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 22:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not true. See The Rambling Man's comments about the timing. Andise1 (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's at least partly true, and there was no need for such haste in posting. It LOOKS like American domination and systemic bias, even if you think it isn't. HiLo48 (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment it's been 24 hours now, with just two people in favour of removing it, and many, many in favour of it being posted. Appearance of bias, "stalking horses" etc etc, whatever.  There's been plenty of chance to overturn the clear and large consensus to post this, and nothing's happened.  Time for people to get over it and move onto something productive.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You must surely realise that a lot of editors don't even bother to look at items that are already posted. HiLo48 (talk) 10:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And clearly our audience is satisfied too, I don't recall seeing a single complaint about this item's appearance on the main page in the past 24 hours either. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be because of the systemic bias of our audience. HiLo48 (talk) 11:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well if we're not here to provide information our audience wants to read, I don't know what we are here for. Not one single complaint.  Nada.  Must be doing something right!! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You can't have looked very hard. There was in fact quite a well-developed complaint discussion at talk:Main_Page well before you made this comment. GoldenRing (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with HiLo here - I'd have opposed this given the chance, but didn't feel strongly enough about it to argue for a pull. 4.5 hours consideration of a minor sporting topic ending at 06:06 UTC is not good enough.  Even if it was done in the very best of faith, it was an undoubted mistake because it creates the appearance of US-based editors doing whatever they like and not caring what anyone else thinks.  There are plenty of stories that garner no opposition but go unposted because no-one bothers; did an admin really have nothing better to do than post this story?
 * Arguing that there hasn't been a 'single complaint' is also rather disingenuous - there have been at least four editors who have expressed concern at this posting, sometimes in very strong terms, in the paragraphs above. GoldenRing (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Still doesn't change the fact there is clear consensus for this to be posted... --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the level of disagreement expressed here can be consensus called consensus, so yes, I rather think it does change that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenRing (talk • contribs) 13:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Logorrhea Log — The preceding discussion comprises 4,000 words. Sca (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Even counting GoldenRing and the MP comment as opposes (while ignoring the MP talk page support comments), there are five supports and four opposes since it was posted. Given that it is much more likely for people to express disapproval than approval of something after the fact, I think it is pretty clear the item would have been posted regardless of timing.  Additionally, some opposes from previous years were supports this year.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree with Thaddeus. I opposed this last time round but there's no issue here at all.  You know something, some of us, maybe all of us, need to remember that Wikipedia is something like the 4th most visited website in the world.  Millions of homepage hits a day.  We have one or two complaints about "too much sport".  So what?  We're not here as a science project, to precisely carve out a politically and socially equal and "correct" encyclopaedia, we're here to put stories on the main page that some/many will find interesting.  We have tens of thousands of hits on ITN, and this post isn't different.   The main page is hit, on average, 15 million times a day.  We're wasting our lives discussing why NCAA was posted and will disappear in a few days time.  No-one else seems bothered, most importantly, the actual, genuine readers of Wikipedia.  Do something else for a change, you whiners and whining stealth ponies, write an article, do something positive.  Transmission ends.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sca (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment -- Please update I don't have a strong feeling one way or another whether this deserves to be up there.  Since the consensus seems to be that it does, then it should be updated to say that UConn also won the women's championship.  That they won both in the same year is bigger news.  Such an update would also help to reduce the WP:BIAS of sports coverage here. Teply (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree, but it would require a separate nomination and an updated article to occur. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I too am disappointed that the ITN section has not yet been updated to reflect the dual championship win. This is more notable than the current article, as it has only happened twice in Division I history - and both have been Connecticut Huskies. mikemillerdc (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't be too disappointed, I just updated it. Please feel free to suggest any streamlining of the blurb.  Before anybody gets wild ideas, do not pull this blurb without first having substantial discussion and obtaining a consensus to do so.  I will take a dim view of my admin action being reversed without following the required procedures.  Additionally, the reason I've added the women is that there is no plausible argument to exclude them and there is clear support to include them.  If the men are posted, the women should be posted too.  Given the choice of pulling the men or adding the women, I've decided that there is a consensus to add the women.  I am most convinced by the argument that the amount of news coverage of these championships is extremely intense.  They get substantially more news coverage than many other sports events that we post.  Per common sense, these belong in the ITN section.  Jehochman Talk 13:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, would you at least fix the fact that the "defeat" in "and the Connecticut Huskies women defeat the Notre Dame Fighting Irish to..." still links to the men's final? I don't know if there's an appropriate women's article.  Either way, two bold links to the same article in one blurb isn't quite right.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I fixed the links - hopefully that doesn't make me a "dim" admin :). There actually is a plausible reason to exclude (or at least not bold) the women's tournament - the article is decidedly not updated (first sentence: "The 2014 NCAA Women's Division I Basketball Tournament will be played in March and April 2014").  ITN requires both consensus on notability and an adequate update. I will try to tackle the update sometime today, to avoid this embarrassment. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not at all! Thank you for helping.  The article has been patched, but certainly could be improved further.  I'm of the opinion that posting quickly can make Wikipedia more engaging for the reader.  If they see a chance to fix something simple, they may begin to edit. Jehochman Talk 15:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a fine theory, but is was more than 12 hours before someone (me) fixed the rest of the tense issues you missed and more than 24 hours before someone (also me) wrote a proper game summary. The consensus based ITN guidelines state that both consensus on merits and a proper update are required before something is posted as a bold link.  It is an embarrassment to those who work hard on ITN and an insult to those who go to great lengths to have "their" articles featured in other areas of the mainpage to post articles that are not updated.  ITN is not a news ticker, but rather a place to feature good article work on subjects that happen to be in the news.  I respectfully request you not post articles until they are updated in the future. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment -- ridiculousI posted that the champions league quarter finals were more culturally significant than this, and i had my nomination shut down and was insulted by people with a credibility gap. So here it is, reality. Wikipedia seems hopelessly parochial and out of touch with reality. College basketball isnt even second level, its kids level. The champions league quarter finals are watched by more people, and are truly a world event, not a domestic kids level event. seriously suggest checking viewing figures world wide, including asia, africa, etc, before making assertions as to its regional nature. Especially as that region is a continent and not a nation. Furthermore, there can be no debate about what the world means when it says the word football, as football is the world game, and all other codes are domestic. Gaelic, Aussie rules, etc are domestic games. American football is a domestic game. football is the world game, whether USA embraces this or not. so to include something as internationally meaningless as a college basketball tournament, while leaving out even the quarter finals of an event carrying around 220 million viewing figures internationally, is silly, parochial, petty and incredulous.

This is a domestic kids level event with little to no interest outside of one nation, who though over represented on wikipedia, are currently carrying 5% of the worlds population. something like even the Champions league quarter finals is a global event, because in asia, africa and even south america, people are watching to the tune of 220 million people worldwide.

Wikipedia is out of touch with reality on the nom. Kids level, domestic, and absolutely irrelevant to the average citizen of planet earth. By all means try making that argument about the champions league semi finals?

Simply put, it matters not that this is a final, and thats a quarter final, as this is a kids level event, and no one outside of america cares what so ever. Comparative viewing figures, international reach tv reach, continent v domestic breadth of the tournaments, and full adult level v kids level nature of competitions all resoundingly back up my point.

Go check google trends under their respective labels and laugh as the whole planet outside of canada and usa turn up a search volume zero for college basketball, and the whole planet including america spam numbers for the champions league. Furthermore the global search volume for the champions league dwarfs college basketball, even in the day of the basketball final.

Wikipedia is domestic, and arrogantly out of touch with reality, on the evidence of this.

Thank you. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Kettle, black. You equate the "rest of the world" (minus the US) with Europe, described the quarter finals of a European event as top 10 in the world across all sports, and equate NCAA basketball with "kids level" sports, and yet it is everyone else who is out of touch with reality?  WOW!
 * And no, Championship League is not widely followed in Africa, Asia, Australia, or South America. It is moderately followed in some of those areas (as is NCAA Basketball), but mostly those areas care about their own region's leagues. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, you obviously just made assumptions instead of actually checking. Google Trends is probably a poor metric to use, but the actual numbers show NCAA basketball has been more searched than Champions League over the last month and has more searches by a 4:1 margin around the championship game, far from your assertion of the opposite.
 * The Champions League final will be posted. We have never posted anything but the final for any sport ever. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with ThaddeusB. While I'm not the greatest fan of this item, it has to be posted, we have a significant consensus to do so, and that's how Wikipedia works.  Next up, whether you think this (or the Boat Race or any such other localised item) is worth posting on the main page, you can do something about that by getting involved in the processes (WP:ITN/C to discuss what goes onto the main page, WP:ITN/R to discuss what will go up regularly as long as it's updated properly).  Thanks for taking the time to give us so much feedback, but unless you and others who agree with your point of view get involved with directing the articles selected for ITN, things won't change to your satisfaction.  Look forward to seeing you participate!!  All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Heh, this is getting so much hate; meanwhile, the Boat Race below is sitting pretty. – H T  D  19:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your point? I think we've already established categorically that the Boat Race is global and NCAA is not quite so.  Time for you to stop pretending otherwise.  Where is NCAA broadcast?  Does it get mainstream television in Europe?  In India?  In China?  What channels broadcast this in Spain?  In Uzbekistan?  In the United Kingdom?   The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "The telecasts will reach sports fans in 165 countries and territories across 35 television and broadcast networks outside the United States." – H T  D  20:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So which channel is that shown on in the United Kingdom? How many hours of it is broadcast to Malaysia?  Is it on Freeview in Spain?  I can't believe this at all, is it free to view in Estonia?  Which broadcaster is showing it in Uruguay?  These need to be answered....  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ESPN international broadcasts it worldwide. If you subscribe to ESPN, you can watch it. TOA and Xinhua ran the results. TV5 broadcast it in the Philippines. Who covered the boat race in the Philippines, USA, Canada (or for that matter Uzbekistan). --76.110.201.132 (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like ESPN has global reach. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see Uzbekistan on that list, which channel is this broadcast on in Uzbekistan? Is this cable or free-to-view in Mongolia? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Same question for The Boat Race. TRM, I think you could agree that NCAA Basketball is US-centric with some international interest, and I think most people would agree that the boat race is UK-centric with some international interest. Why not just leave it at that? Uzbekistan and Mongolia are barely countries... --76.110.201.132 (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's clear that neither of these events have the level of interest of Olympic Mens Ice Hockey or the FIFA World Cup. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ice hockey? Funniest thing I've ever read!  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What a stupid comparison. One is the global #1 sporting event by a very wide margin.  The other isn't even a top 10 sport worldwide. --21:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia entries : UCL Quarters 0 BBLL 3. Global reach : UCL - Global (Go check - Africa, Asia etc are interested, do buy the kits, do watch the UCL as its the premier global competition in football, the worlds biggest game. It doesnt matter if its based in Europe, the players and fans are global elite, and from a diverse range of nations). Global reach of BBLL - USA and Canada. Google trends might not be sacrosanct, but it is devastating on this one. Breadth of competition : UCL : Continental and featuring global talent pool. BBLL : Domestic and featuring local talent pool. Significance of Competition : UCL - Senior level, worlds biggest game and talent pool. Most prestigious competition in club football. BBLL - Little leagues. Kids version of adult game.
 * You guys... Champions League Quarter finals V BBall little leagues final.

Regardless of the phase of the UCL it is more watched, more globally watched, more globally participated on a player level, a far more significant competition, a far bigger sport, a categorically more important and more senior level, etc,etc,etc.

The hubris and arrogant refusal to accept basic facts on this one makes a mockery of wikipedia. Well done getting a consensus when most of the posters are americans. UCL QFs are simply bigger, more internationally significant, intrinsically a continental sized competition, featuring the worlds best players and the highest level of the worlds biggest game by far.

And American Basketball little leagues gets 3 mentions on wikipedia and not a jot was given by anyone east of dixie or west of san fran.

I must add, all youve done on google trends thadeus is demonstrated that the UCL is getting comparable figures to mad march, on days that arent even match days. On the match days, the spike is clearly in favor of the UCL. Considering mad march is on for a month and theres only 2 match days for the UCL in that time, its hilarious that theres comparable trends figures over all and a clear spike for the UCL quarter final match day, over the final of the basketball little mini leagues final itself. All clearly demonstrated by your link, along with the global interest I previous stated. Cheers for that. Excellent piece of evidence for my case there friend. You guys will try to own the truth and the news, like some medieval force. Fair enough, but you are categorically wrong to suggest that the BBLittle leagues are more culturally significant thant then UCL quarters on any merit other than local 5% backwater on the map. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, what I showed with the Google Trend link is that you are just making stuff up. You claimed "search volume for the champions league dwarfs college basketball, even in the day of the basketball final" which is blatantly false.  Much like the rest of your comments, it was based solely on your belief of reality and nothing objective.  You accuse other people of being "hopelessly parochial and out of touch with reality", when it is you who is seemingly incapable of seeing any perspective but your own.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%2Fm%2F0c1q0%2C%20%2Fm%2F039yzs&cmpt=q http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%2Fm%2F0c1q0%2C%20%2Fm%2F039yzs&date=today%207-d&cmpt=q
 * Not sure how to post these links - but...

Dwarfed. Even on the very day, your little league basketball had its final. Arguing with ignorance here, I am. Broadcast in 80 nations the UCL is, and readily demonstrable on a wikipedia page as such. Along with 220 million viewing figures for the competition. Hilarious parachial ignorance and hubris. The whole world knows UCL dwarfs college basketball, but luckily we dont need to ask them as there is much more that my refusal to accept ignorance, and your myopic delusional regionalism. There is page after page of statistics to show UCL is more internationally significant and I pity the person who tries to argue against this. I could literally just sit here and wait for people to drop pages of evidence. Have a good one though. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strange definition of "dwarfed". In your very own link, I see


 * April 5: college basketball 20, Champions League 17
 * April 6: CBB 30, UCL 14
 * April 7: UCL 17, CBB 14
 * Now if you had bothered to search for the actual event being compared (searching for "college basketball" to find the tournament is like searching for "football" to find UCL matches)


 * April 5: NCAA Championship 48, Champions League 17
 * April 6: NCAA 58, UCL 14
 * April 7: NCAA 22, UCL 17
 * Which dwarfs which again? That said, no one has argued the slightest bit that Champions League is not important, nor has anyone stated it is less popular than NCAA basketball.  The only things I've stated is 1) you are making up stuff; 2) you are horribly biased.  Both are obviously true.
 * Bottom line - we post the event finals of notable events. That includes UCL and 8 other association football events.  It also includes NCAA basketball and several other things that I am sure you care zero about (and are not US events).  We post events once based on the notability of the entire event.  We do not post preliminary rounds/quarter finals/semi-finals of any event. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Dwarfed. – H T  D  22:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Once again cherry picking non match days. I ask you straight- on the day featured - 8/4/14 - what were the totals? The first chart gives a very clear picture of their respective significances, and your cherry picking non UCL match days misses the central assertion of my argument. The day in question has two major sports events. One featured and one not. What were the respective totals?

I read UCL 100 NCAA championship 12.

http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%2Fm%2F0c1q0%2C%20ncaa%20championship&date=today%207-d&cmpt=q

Thats on the very day we are arguing about, when supposedly your little league version, domestic, regional pastime was "in the news".

The NCAA made $912.8 million last year from countless games. http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2014/03/27/ncaa-approaching-billion-per-year-amid-challenges-players/6973767/ The UCL is an elite event, with far fewer matches and match days, trading rights with nations far less prosperous than America and managed $1.8 billion. http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/news/newsid=1858497.html

Its not freeview on espn around the world either. 80 nations and their broadcasters paid for it.

Im not going to continue to argue about this, but this whole thing is about whats in the news, and poor as google trends is, it shows clearly 100/12 in favour of UCL on the very day in question.

I rest my case. Good evening to you. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I assumed you knew, but NCAA basketball actually ended on April 7. My bad for assuming.  Nice "cherry picking" though, even if inadvertent.  I think we can agree on one thing though - this is not worth arguing further.  Good evening to you as well.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe this chart is the most valid of all. And the UCL had 125 matches in a span of months (from the group stage onwards); the NCAA tournament has 67 games in three weekends. So UEFA had $14.4 million/match with teams actually losing money (RIP Rangers); the NCAA had $13.6 million/game, and they didn't even have to pay the players(!!!!). – H T  D  00:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Logorrhea Log — The preceding discussion comprises 7,600 words. Sca (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

[RD] Zeituni Onyango

 * Oppose Extremely weak evidence of being a leader in any field. --M ASEM (t) 20:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose meets nothing in the RD criteria that I can see from the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Cement merger

 * weak support its good per the Fyffes precedent. But im not sure how its structured. Will one own more than the other? Or is it a merger of equals? Someone must have paid more in stock, or was it a cash merger? Also if there is regulatory doubt then id waitLihaas (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Holcim is technically the acquiring party, but in reality it is a merger of equals. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * should we structure it like Fyffes then?Lihaas (talk) 01:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think either (or both ) articles could receive the update if that is the question. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What's the Fyffes precedent? (for those of us uneducated :) ) CaptRik (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Lihaas is referring to this blurb: "Chiquita and Fyffes agree to a merger that would create the world's largest banana producer." which was posted last month. A suppose the precendent he refers to (even though we don't work of precendents) is something like "create industry's largest company = post worthy" --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I'm going to sit on the fence on this nom, i'm pondering where the granularity should be for articles like this (for example, cement manufacturer vs industrial material manufacturer, or banana producer vs fruit producer).  CaptRik (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose neither article appear to even mention this (both listing each other as a competitor) and the Holcim article is barely stub quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, hence why I said the articles would require significant work. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Then dare I be bold enough to suggest that in your pursuit of more business coverage on ITN, you fix up the articles yourself before nominating them, thus removing one of the two major stumbling blocks, i.e. article quality (the other being ITN-worthiness). Unless you or someone else can be bothered to fix these up, this nomination will fail dismally.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I do intend to work on this tonight. (I hope you know I would never want anything of poor quality posted.) As to nomination timing, it is kind of a lose-lose situation.  If I fix it and then nominate it is too late to get enough comments (because it takes a while to fix an article of poor quality).  If I nominate first I get opposes on quality grounds.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's ifine what oyou are doing. TRM enjoys bitching around here instead of being helpful. Cest la vie and all of that. Keep up the good work though ;)Lihaas (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Very helpful Lihaas, very helpful. Keep up your great work here, whatever "ifine what oyou" means...  Of course, if you could spare a moment, you could tell me what part of my constructive oppose here constitutes a "bitching"?  You could also point me to the nomination which you made that I support.  You could do more... but I'm guessing you won't.  If not, I suggest you wind your neck in and do something useful for a change.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have created a new article, LafargeHolcim, on the merger. This seemed to be the best way to handle the new material, rather than repeating everything at both partners.  I will be working on the article throughout the day, but it should already be sufficient to show that this merger will have a large impact on the industry even if it never takes place.  Eventually I will add a brief summary of the new article to the two merging company's articles. , if you could take a look at your convenience and let me know what you think, I'd appreciate it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Article is now in good shape, although I will continue article work... Now we just need some opinions on the merits of the story so that we can form a consensus.--ThaddeusB (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose as I opposed the banana merger. This will effect the middle managers who are laid off, and may mean marginally increased prices for consumers.  But it won't mean new cement markets opening up, like iCement or Virgin Spacement.  Business stories about new developments are good, but this is just about market efficiencies. μηδείς (talk) 23:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * People (not you presumably) tend to oppose new developments in business as "commercial product announcements, not real news"... Of course no one can predict the future for sure, but the industry analysts are saying this merger is likely to have effects that ripple throughout the industry.  The consumers of cement are other business, so if prices do change "marginally" it would impact businesses of a wide variety. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I do tend to oppose business noms. I think this one was in good faith and worth nominating.  I just don't think it is cutting edge, or has anything to do, again, with other than a management restructuring.  If we go by size, this may have size.  But if we go by innovation, which is how I view news, none is promised.
 * Again, I'll apologize, because my opposition seems combative. It's just that I don't tend to bother to post when I agree with a trend and se nothing worth adding.  Here there was a request for comment--otherwise I'd have stayed silent. μηδείς (talk) 05:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize - I respect your consistency and realize it was my request for more opinions that attracted your !vote. As a group, we have no (informal) standards as to what is a worthy business item which tends to lead to nothing at all being posted.  Meanwhile, in the typical newspaper (at least in the US) business is one of the four or five sections printed every day.  I will probably start a talk page discussion soon to try and get a better idea of what business stuff people are wiling to support. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Cement might not be the most exciting thing out there, but it's pretty important, and a $55billion merger is big news in most industries. GoldenRing (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Not so much on it being on cement, but $55B is far from trivial nowadays. --M ASEM (t) 14:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Posted a little late in the day, but no reason this shouldn't be posted, good new article created by ThaddeusB and a reasonable consensus for this to be up for a few days. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

RD: John Shirley-Quirk

 * Weak Oppose. The qualification Briish baritone makes this look less important that, say, "great" baritone.  Can this be argued on best-in-filed merits, rather than great-in-locality merits? μηδείς (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The antagonist roles in Britten's last opera, Death In Venice, were written for him, and he took them to The Met, where he was brought back to sing other roles. He also performed Belshazzar's Feast at the Last Night of the Proms. This was a man with an international career and reputation, but whose greatest fame was as a singer of English music. We currently have a WWF wrestler in recent deaths, John Shirley-Quirk was massively more significant. He created several important classical roles, had music written for him by Benjamin Britten, has an enormous catalogue of superb recordings, BBC Radio 3 has been playing some of them in his honour. He also had an international teaching career. Fischer-Dieskau had a greater reputation, but not much. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Tentative support, once article improved -- currently far from suitable quality, though I note it's in the process of being improved from the Telegraph obituary. To try to address Medeis's comment, English classical music from the era Shirley-Quirk was performing was a prominent genre internationally. He was preeminent worldwide as an interpreter of this movement, and particularly of Britten, who wrote several roles for him; he made several definitive recordings of Britten's works. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I've made a few adjustments to the article, but can't find it in my mind sufficient notability to support this RD. There are just a couple of sources reporting his death, and while one calls him a "legendary interpreter of Britten", that's a pretty niche claim.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support He was certainly one of the leading bass-baritones of his time. As has been noted, several roles were specially written for him. Being a legendary Britten interpreter is nothing to be sniffed at either - Britten is one of the most important composers of the 20th century. As for μηδείς's point about "British", it is not always easy to compare singers who perform in different national/linguistic traditions - British opera and vocal music is quite different from its German, Italian, French or Russian counterparts. I doubt anyone would bat an eyelid if a nomination of a writer talked about his or her importance in French or German literature - we recognise that different languages and nations have quite separate literary traditions. The same applies in opera and vocal music, where of course the language plays such a key role. Neljack (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

RD: Peaches Geldof

 * Question. Thanks for the nomination; I would ask which of the recent deaths criteria this person meets? 331dot (talk) 12:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Same question from me - see here In_the_news - I think this nomination may struggle to meet any of them. CaptRik (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a fair question, I can't say it meets any of them - just noticed that it's getting media attention and thought it was worth a shot. I'm happy to self-close the nom if it's got no chance at all. Organics LRO 12:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't a death for RD. This is a death for a real blurb. – H T  D  12:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What are the grounds for a blurb here? 331dot (talk) 12:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Uh, it's in the news? It's like when Hoffman died, no one expected that she'll die right now at the ripe old age of 25, previous drug use notwithstanding. – H  T  D  12:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I apologize; I guess my question is, is this person as famous as Hoffman was? Her article is kinda short. 331dot (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * TBH, I don't know, probably not; but her death generated large enough interest. I guess Hoffman was a bad comparison. Perhaps a better one would be Steve Irwin. It appears that our standards for regular blurbs for deaths is that the person who died was exceptional, or the person's death generated huge interest. – H T  D  13:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the answer is definitely not as famous as Hoffman. A tragic, short life, yes, but achievements?  Awards?  Notability outside being Bob and Paula's daughter?  Not much at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not needed if you are the daughter of the right person Count Iblis (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose I know it's been "in the news", but being "in the news" doesn't necessarily make it ITN, as has been discussed here countless times. She doesn't have the achievements/awards or anything, save her parentage, that makes her so important. I don't see any comparison between her and PSH other than the unexpected natures of their deaths. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Muboshgu. Shocking and tragical news for sure, but no major impact. -Zanhe (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As above, thanks for your nomination, but this time it's an oppose as although the death was tragic, it's not quite up there in notability stakes for ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Only really notable for being the daughter of other famous individuals (IE - famous for being famous). Not the top in her field (whatever that was), and the "celebrity" reactions of Phillip Schofield and Helen Flanagan speak volumes. Hardly Obama and Merkel.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Scofe is close, Flanagan begin again. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Muboshgu. Although if the Cory what's-his-name logic holds, she should get a full blurb; even though world renown actors like Mickey Rooney and Paul Newman don't just because they were old when they died. Rhodesisland (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC) rhodesisland
 * Oppose. Just not significant enough. She was famous only for being someone's daughter. Even her TV appearances were based on that simple fact of parentage. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 23:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, perversely, for the above stated reasons: daughter of Bob Geldof and Paula Yates, granddaughter of Hughie Green, this person has cultural signifnicance well beyond they personal fame, IMO. Guy (Help!) 00:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Partial support, im probably doing this all wrong, but I just wanted to point out to rambling man that the world doesnt revolve around america, and that peaches geldof is on about the same searches total as the ultimate warrior. rooney has been gone for days, and he is no where near that total. we live in a multi polar world, defined by the interests of our generation as much as the medias ideas on who was noteworthy 50 years ago. the british media has gone nuts over this, and on a world wide basis its a lot more culturally significant than the death of rooney. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Question Did this person ever make the news before she died? HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Partial support. In far more respectable circles than Paris Hilton has done..She basically grew up in front of the media and did a lot of productive work in her field. It wasnt quite as productive as the out standing contributions of someone like Warrior, and her parents werent quite as famous as someone like prince william, but she was well known in the uk, and therefore her name carries. I think its a valid point that her parents are a calling card, unlike someone like stella mccartney, who is one of the greatest fashion designers ever...I understand wikipedias need for a stringent criteria with these things, but when you are making news, it is hard to just reflect world events on some grand merit scheme. The comments are a little america centric, seem tinged with hypocrisy, (we dont have any idea what she died of, but we see none of the same dirty tones around warriors sad passing, that seem to accompany a drugs speculation on peaches). The bottom line is the lindberg baby is only famous because of its parents, but we look back and it was a significant cultural event, not because of any grand political factor, but because human interest has the power to make things thus. Consensus in this media seems to be achieved by making the most americans agree with you. As i said, contrary to rambling mans previous points with regard to rooney, he is getting less than half the amount of searches that peaches is, and silly as it may seem to some people, worldwide, she is "in the news" and arguably more famous than he is. I think when you start deciding what is and isnt news on a particular day or week, you run the risk of using lofty criteria as a tool to delude yourself as to the profound myopia of location and generational concern. I absolutely agree that celebrities who are basically fampous for being famous, should not command the same attention from wikipedia as more politically significant developments do. However, when someone dies at 25 who is essentially a fixture on the national backdrop, and a media frenzy follows this, supported by actual and genuine public interest in many different continents, - you have what was in the news on that day or week. Looking back over history, surely it is better to reflect what was a significant news story of that time, rather than dictate it. With trivial celebrity rubbish it has no permanence or cultural significance. However as with my example of the lindberg baby, the deaths of these cultural fixtures, and resultant media franzy, do have a permanence and legitimite cultural landmark factor, that are a little more intransient. A great many people will look back and think of this as the week that peaces geldof died. Any fair reflection of what was in the news this week, would probably reflect that. Thank you. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You say "She...did a lot of productive work in her field." Um, precisely what was her field? HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Suggest read her wikipedia entry. She was a notable public figure who had been a model and journalist and the story itself is permanent, because it concerns a death, and notable, because its very big news story commanding the same kind of internet searches as ultimate warrior passing. In short her name was one of the two hottest searches on the www on the day she died. There has been blanket coverage in the british media and well, its no college basketball game, but hey. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose We always say notability isn't inherited. Just because her mother died an early death doesn't make her death particularly notable. Add to that the fact that she was 25, and hadn't really made her mark in her field. The news is mainly gossipy stuff that's built around her celebrity status, Bob's reaction, and her mysterious death. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 02:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Question What was particularly notable about JFK Jrs death? Because its listed as one of the 15 most significant events of July 1999, and I have no idea what the man did other than being the son of a famous man, who also died too soon? Notability isnt inherited if your father is trying to save the world, but it is perhaps more congenital if he was trying to run it... 77.101.41.108 (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, known primarily for being a celebrity child but not because of any major achievements of her own. Nsk92 (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Her wikipedia page has like half a mill more views than the ultimate warrior. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Quebec general election, 2014

 * Oppose I know the Quebecois regard their province as more special than your average state or province, but this isn't a national election. HiLo48 (talk) 05:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not a national election, cried the Mayor of Essex.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose; we don't typically post subnational elections; as I understand it the only big story is that the separatist party was defeated, which only means that the status quo will remain. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose While a pretty big deal within Canada, not just Quebec, (the separatist party no longer being in power), I don't see it as significant enough to be ITN. --kelapstick(bainuu) 13:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose With very rare exceptions (heck, I can't think of one right now), we don't post subnational elections. Redverton (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Indian general election, 2014
Support - 814 million potential voters start a very unique election process. Definitely a huge story and the entry reflects that. Mvblair (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is simply about the fact that they are having election. This has happened before in Indian (if it was the first democratic election, sure). But I'll support the results, not the fact that the election is starting.  Spencer T♦ C 22:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose We only post election results, not the beginning of the election process. I see no reason to change that. --hydrox (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment This same issue was discussed on March 31, and roundly rejected that we would not post anything until the results were known. Stephen 23:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] The IBM mainframe is celebrating its 50th anniversary today

 * NOt a lick in hell this is going on as its more for OTDLihaas (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose as opposed to the directly rude comment above, I'd suggest this is not ITN; a shame it missed OTD. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose It would help if nominators actually read the articles they link to. IBM mainframe says, in its very first sentence, "IBM mainframes are large computer systems produced by IBM from 1952 to the present". (My bolding.) It's the 50th anniversary of System/360, which does mean something, but this nomination is simply wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This would be an anniversary, not a news story. And apparently the date is wrong anyway. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 23:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine

 * Support — For all the obvious reasons. Reuters: "Kiev fears invasion." Sca (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support The informed speculation has always been that Russia planned to do a repeat if the Crimean strategy of "internal" revolt followed by invasion to "protect" ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. The fact that Russian TV was live broadcasting the protesters' fake legislature and call for a referendum to join Russia convinces me that this is not trivial. Thue (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Footnote — Latvia, Lithuania ban Russian state TV broadcasts as "tendentious" re Ukraine. Sca (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The Russian ITAR-TASS is describing the fake legislature made out of random unelected protesters occupying the building as just "the regional legislature". Really. Thue (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - It is a fast-changing situation, but certainly dominating the news. Definitely an important event. Mvblair (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Donetsk article is currently up for deletion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, and strewn with factional arguments. Easy thing is to unlink the article.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait normally this would go up, but there has been plenty of updates with this border dispute. I suggest waiting until there is something more than a bunch of average people declaring something. Nergaal (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait. If this is significant in the way being suggested, then we will surely have something more concrete to post in the very near future. Formerip (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No. The building was already taken back according to some reports. My very best wishes (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A building in another city was taken back. The Donatsk building was definitely not taken back. Thue (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support posting now. What has happened so far is quite significant already. Instead of waiting for something "particularly big" to happen, the correct thing to do is to keep a ticker than gets updated as events develop. Nsk92 (talk) 04:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose It's a difficult one to judge; I have difficulty with this story for a few reasons, a) Donetsk is not an autonomous region like Crimea was therefore can't declare independence, b) This is basically an armed group besieging a building to make a political point, something that's not uncommon in the Ukraine right now. c) Most buildings have already been re-taken.  I think a story of this level of detail is more comparable to the routine events you hear from N. Korea - they make a brief news splash but have no real lasting impact.  There is definitely a possibility of a bigger, more supportable, story here however if Russia decides to get overtly involved.  CaptRik (talk) 11:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support: the situation is escalating once more. The EU and US have both issued fresh sanctions in recent days (10/12 April), and there have now been casualties in clashes in the East with militants allegedly backed by the Kremlin.  It Is Me Here  t /  c  12:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Mickey Rooney

 * Support An obvious candidate for this spot, even though we don't know the cause yet. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I think he was bigger than you may think Masem. HiLo48 (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If there's support for a full blurb, I'd be fully behind it. It's just that I'm not thinking this wasn't unexpected (just looking at the pics on the Rooney page, you can tell he was close) and RD is certainly assured here. --M ASEM (t) 03:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right. No matter what the official report might end up saying, he has died of old age, a bloody good old age! So, no surprise. HiLo48 (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Big name, but long since out of the spotlight and the death itself is not unusual; RD makes sense over a blurb. GRAPPLE   X  03:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support huge star, multiple awards, iconic career, subject himself of imitation and allusion by other stars and in the media for decades. Marking ready for RD, and support full blurb. μηδείς (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I just added an alternate hook since this is hook-worthy. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD with no doubt this is warranted. Debate can continue for a full blurb. Stephen 04:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support full blurb per all of Medeis' reasons. The end may not have been sudden but the 88-year career calls for it! Rhodesisland (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support for RD only (even though there was and still is an ORANGE maintenance tag in the Personal life section, the section most likely to be highlighted by Rooney's death). Although I think Rooney warrants a full blurb, the article has large swathes of unreferenced text and as such is not suitable for posting to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support full blurb - Fix the article and give him a full blurb, I say. Jus  da  fax   06:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support full blurb per Jusdafax. So it may not have been as less expected like Philip Seymour Hoffman's death; however, Rooney was the last surviving silent film era actor that everyone had heard of. -- Jón - ( Talk ) 06:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Other than Dickie Moore of course, but I do agree that the Orange tag needs to be resolved first. 07:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhodesisland (talk • contribs)
 * Support RD, oppose full blurb - This is what RD is for. We don't post deaths of nobodies to RD, we post deaths of people whose life makes them noteworthy but whose death is only newsworthy because of their lives.  It's not like the average RD nomination has comments like, "Bit of a star, almost won an award, mediocre career, no-one took much notice of him," (to paraphrase Medeis reasoning).  Nominations like Hoffmann got a full blurb because his death was in some way significant in and of itself.  This is nowhere near that grade.  GoldenRing (talk) 08:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb I agree with GoldenRing - leaving aside cases where the death itself is significant, I think blurbs should be reserved for major international figures - the sort of people whose death leads the global news. Furthermore, I question whether Rooney is quite as important as people are making him out to be. For instance, when the American Film Institute produced its list of the 50 greatest actors of the 20th century, Rooney was not on there. I do not dispute that he was a very important actor, well worthy of an RD listing, but I'm not convinced that he was one of the very greatest actors ever. Neljack (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per Neljack and GoldenRing. 331dot (talk) 10:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support full blurb I turned to the main page to look for the Rooney article, and was surprised not to find it. The man had a 90-year career in show business, truly unprecedented, and his death warranted an immense front page obituary in the New York Times, occupying one-fourth of the entire front page, by Aljean Harmetz, with a full page inside the paper devoted to the man. This kind of obit is reserved only for major figures in the history of entertainment. Coretheapple (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ...and those are arguments for an RD listing. GoldenRing (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I believe we typically post deaths as a blurb when the death is particularly shocking or unexpected(not just because someone was old, as Rooney was 93) or if they were at the tip-top of their field with worldwide influence or notability(like Margaret Thatcher or Nelson Mandela), which isn't the case here either. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support full blurb based on impressive New York Times obituary Secret account 14:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Specifically here, as well as some of the other first stories that broke on this. --M ASEM (t) 14:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Are we really saying that Rooney was the equivalent(in the field of acting) of Mandela and Thatcher(other notable people whose deaths themselves were not notable)? "Impressive obituary" only means a writer summarized his career and life well, and does not indicate that he was at the very tip-top of his field. 331dot (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The critical line is "in their field", we don't make comparison to other fields. --M ASEM (t) 15:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm asking; is Rooney as important to acting as Thatcher was to politics or Mandela? As TT says below, is he the greatest of all time? 331dot (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. He was a legend, yes, but I wouldn't consider him one of the greatest of all time. I also don't think his death is particularly shocking like Hoffman's, as Rooney's career peaked a while ago.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 14:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Not very internationally known, and not an exceptional mega-star or a trend setter. RD is perfect. --Somchai Sun (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not very internationally known ? Andise1 (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a mega star? Not a trend-setter? Seriously, some people here need to do some reading.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Why don't you address me directly? He wasn't, in any-way shape or form a mega star in my mind: he was great, but not great-great. Like comparing Abe Lincoln to Ronald Reagan...whatever. I don't care if you disagree with my opinion, sorry! --Somchai Sun (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support full blurb - Very known internationally, unlike what some claim here. One of the last surviving actors of the silent era who dies aged 93 years old after a long and fulfilling career. Seriously, should anything else be added to that? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Update Blurb this looks like about 8 to 6 in favor of an upgrade to a full blurb, depending on the interpretation of some conditional statements. μηδείς (talk) 05:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Or, to put it another way, there's no consensus for a blurb. It's fine the way it is, let's just let it be. If it isn't a blindingly obvious decision, then it probably isn't blurb material. And I honestly don't think this one is. Not to mention, it still has those pesky orange tags. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Blurb but clear support for RD. It may be that if the heyday of his career were better remembered he might be regarded as more notable but as I read his article I see he had a prolific (and obviously very long) career, won a number of top awards, and was a successful actor.  Not groundbreaking or record-setting.  His death produced tributes but where I am it was a relatively minor news item.  RD seems about right.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Update Blurb Bongwarrior's comment on consensus is simply wrong. The discussion in August 2012 establishing RD addressed this explicitly, and it was agreed as part of the RfC that when a majority of support votes (which we still have) were in favor of a full blurb, a full blurb would be posted. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb in current condition, far too much of the article in need of help. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

[RD] Chuck Stone

 * Oppose article quality is very poor, not seeing how this person was top of their field, no awards noted in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Question. Which of the Recent Deaths criteria does this person meet?  331dot (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Answer Criterion 2--being "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." The obituary I linked to above says that "His reputation grew after he was hired as the first black columnist for the Philadelphia Daily News, where he worked as a columnist and editor from 1972 to 1991. He was known for being outspoken on discrimination, police brutality and racism." Jinkinson   talk to me  21:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't say so before but a blurb is out of the question; should be considered just an RD nomination. I respectfully disagree with the assessment given; if the field is journalism, I don't think being the first black columnist for a single newspaper makes him that notable(if he was the first for any newspaper, maybe).  It doesn't mention any awards won for his work (two nominations are) or other critical acclaim, or if others in his field were influenced by him.  331dot (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thanks for pointing that out 331dot, I have fixed the template. Jinkinson   talk to me  05:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Wrestlemania XXX

 * Oppose You could ask the scriptwriters whether we will ever see the like of this again, or not. This is like reporting the contents of the latest episode of any TV sit-com or drama as news. HiLo48 (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll go grab a crystal ball and get on that; you're right that it's scripted but this is the culmination of something that started in 1991--even if they started trying to replicate it right now we'd still not see it again until 2037. GRAPPLE   X  03:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If Alf Stewart was outed as a paedophile tonight we wouldn't post it here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - its not sports news, but it is entertainment news. WWE is followed by a large number of people and like Grapple says this record will likely never be broken (even though script writers could in theory do so).  --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose impossible to bring myself to argue against the nomination of scripted pablum as if it had anything to do with reality. μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Record in the field, even if it is scripted. Also, this might be an interesting read; there is considerable staying power and fitness required for pro wrestling, even if it is scripted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's simply NOT a record. It's a fictional story about a fictional record. Or perhaps more like a fictional play about a fictional record that's been performed by some actors. HiLo48 (talk) 10:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A record in its field, which would be "scripted professional wrestling". Is it a scripted record? Yes. Does that mean it is not a record in its field? No. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If I write a story about a longer record, will that be posted here? HiLo48 (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak support but oppose current blurb. This might be some sort of entertainment news, but we shouldn't post the proposed blurb since it is scripted(if they had wanted that person to win again they could have done it).  I would support a more general blurb that Wrestlemania XXX occurred. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - Matters to people who care about the sport/entertainment and it's participants, therefore worthy of mention — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.108.226 (talk)
 * Everything matters to someone; the question is if this has the notability and news coverage to be posted. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb. Event is worldwide and draws huge interest but the blurb is not encyclopedic for the myriad reasons given above regarding scripts, acting etc.  If the blurb had said something like "Wrestlemania XXX draws the largest television crowd for any professional wrestling event in history", it might draw a mild support.  However, even then it'd be better suited for DYK, just as this factoid-based blurb is too. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Do we post about major plot developments in soap operas and the like? No. So why post this fictional plot development? Fgf10 (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Regardless of the fact it's scripted, I don't actually see that it's massively notable. Black Kite (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'd be happy to support is this "sport" wasn't scripted and in fact, do we ever see WWF results in the back page of the news, no not unless it is scripted. Donnie Park (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Pro "wrestling" is not a sporting competition but a scripted theatrical performance. I find comparisons to plot developments of soap operas quite fair. We would not post any stuff – however unusual – from the The Bold and the Beautiful as news, would we? --hydrox (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Hungarian election/ Viktor Orban
Nominator's comments: ITNR, results should be out shortly as voting has concluded. --Lihaas (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Are parliamentary elections really ITNR? Also, the winners here are well known in advance. Nergaal (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed they are. Neljack (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * support with Altblurb II μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC) (actual support)
 * Support; maybe add something about the various parties? -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support and agree that something on party standings should be included. Medeis, keep the ad hominem stuff to yourself, please. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Calm down, Alex. The nominator originally said It meets at least two of the de facto criteria here: it doesn't have to do with the US, and it's about the leader of a major country. Of course, I expect everyone to pooh-pooh the significance of this event just like they do with all my other nominations and I pretended to oppose on his own grounds. μηδείς (talk) 06:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I have re-opened this given it was closed by a competing editor who neither signed the closure nor notified the voting editors nor copied their votes to an unsupported and technically separate nomination below. μηδείς (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ITN is not a competition. It is unproductive to have two nominations for same thing.  If either Lihaas or Jinkinson want to pat themselves on the back for nominating this, they can feel free to do so.  I will combine the nominations now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the blurbs should be merged: With Fidesz winning a plurality in the Hungarian parliamentary election, Viktor Orban is re-elected Prime Minister of Hungary. μηδείς (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you ThaddeusBb, I have no intention to compete, it was just open and ITNR below so no reason to rediscuss. Completely stupid comment above you.
 * Let me add that by precedent we don't mention the latter party. So @"Fidesz win a plurality was the proper one"Lihaas (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * According to the projections Fidesz will win a majority (quite possibly a two-thirds one, allowing them to unilaterally make constitutional changes), not a plurality - see the Reuters article. I have therefore changed "plurality" to "majority" in the blurbs. Neljack (talk) 09:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support — Though an expected result, it's significant (perhaps ominous?). Re "majority" cited by Neljack, suggest caution — Reuters also says, "...but only by one seat. Final results could still push Fidesz back below the threshold." Sca (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * True, only projections...changed blurb (and swapped them)Lihaas (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Not updated - neither article has been updated at this time. Orban's article would need some trimming of existing material in addition to an update to warrant posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Now updated wih proseLihaas (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Majority — Fidesz retains two-thirds parliamentary majority in final tally. Time to post? Sca (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Posted alt II, shame this was overlooked until now (by myself included) and thus will get little timeon the MP before it cycles off. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Boat Race
Do we normally post the Army-Navy Game? μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We have not posted much sports of cultural significance. I would like that to change. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If someone suggested posting the Harvard-Yale Game I would assume it was either a joke or a real sign of that dreaded institutional bias. I don't think there's any chance at all Britain is underrepresented here culturally--although it was very weird we didn't post the Bafta's. μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The four most culturally significant sporting events in the United States are (in no particular order) the Super Bowl, the World Series, March Madness, and the Kentucky Derby. Three of these of posted, while the exclusion is one of the greatest injustices on ITN in my opinion.  Like March Madness (and the Army-Navy game), the significance of The Boat Race goes well beyond the "level of play".  While I don't know what the most significant sports are in every country of the world, I am certainly open to listening to testimony of my fellow Wikipedians.  When such nominations hopefully occur in the future, they will have my support 100%. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, on a quick count, so far this year there have been six ITN items related to the United Kingdom, the majority RD. Compare that to 20 for the USA and I think you've found where the systemic bias is here.  In particular, the number of American "entertainers" listed for RD is excessive, IMO. GoldenRing (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Excluding RD there have been 3 US related blurbs since January 1: Janet Yellen as Fed Chair, posted Jan 7, the Super Bowl posted Feb 3, and the Washington Mud Slide, posted March 25. -- Jayron  32  12:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I did kind of point to entertainment-related RDs as the main culprit. I guess you're right, then, three blurbs is reasonable - so long as you don't count "The United States announces that it will relinquish control of the DNS root zone," or the Oscars, or the Grammys, or the Polar Vortex, or the genetic sequencing of ancient native Americans.  So that'd be eight blurbs, not three.  And before you complain that the genetic sequencing of ancient Americans is not US-related as it predates the union, realise that I also counted the discovery of the oldest known footprints outside of Africa (in Edinburgh) towards the UK tally. GoldenRing (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The UK is a smaller country, so you would expect it to have less stories than the US even if no bias existed. Regardless, the proper way to correct bias is to nominate and improve more non-US stories, not to oppose notable US stories. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Er, yeah. And this is a UK story that someone was opposing (or at least commenting against) on the grounds that UK stories are over-represented here.  GoldenRing (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Um, in fact it's your nomination of a UK story. What's the problem again? GoldenRing (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem. I am happy to have this story posted (obviously).  But, if someone is going to make accusations of pro-US bias on ITN, I am going to respond.  Of all the areas on Wikipedia, ITN is the least biased. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:TFP is pretty unbiased. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I will concede on that point and revise to "ITN is among the least biased". --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Support: Agree with nominator's rationale. 62.249.160.48 (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Support Tradition is important. HiLo48 (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per the rationale given. 331dot (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support although the wrong result. Have adjusted blurb for BritEng (see BBC for example). The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Per nom. Also viewed by approximately 130 million people so clearly important enough globally.  CaptRik (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, not to mention the seven million plus viewers in Britain alone (i.e. about 11% of the population). The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support The event has huge cultural and traditional value in the United Kingdom. One only needs to look at the popularity shown by the public, most of whom having never attended either of the universities. Given the consensus here, perhaps a more experienced user might like to nominate it for WP:ITN/R. 86.170.98.9 (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Marked ready --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Support Overdue for posting. Major tradition and much media attention both in the UK and worldwide. Obvious post. Fgf10 (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted. I voted, but it's a clear consensus.  So sue me.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

One common reason to modify the blurbs is to sidestep the "defeat"/"defeats" issue that invariably causes some readers to mistakenly believe that we've goofed (and even has led well-meaning admins to "correct" the wording by switching to an inappropriate English variety). I saw team nicknames in the bold-linked article and confirmed their use in multiple reliable sources' coverage of the event (including those in the UK). This, in my view, was an opportunity for commonality. You're entitled to disagree, but I'd like to think that my efforts (here and in general) are better than "disgraceful". —David Levy 21:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC) Again, the teams' nicknames appear in our article and in news reports (including headlines) from countless reliable sources (British and otherwise).
 * Post-posting apology, it appears that another admin has taken it upon himself to adjust the blurb to something akin to a tabloid headline with no context or meaning to non-experts. The fact that both teams race in variations of blue is entirely irrelevant to this blurb and unhelpful in understanding the news story.  I have asked for this to be removed and reverted to something akin to the blurb that was agreed here with a community consensus.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, you rushed to my talk page to about my "disgraceful" insertion of team nicknames appearing in countless reliable sources and our article about the event.  —David Levy 19:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and I look forward to you restoring the blurb as agreed by consensus here, not your own personal preference. The sooner the better. Why would you feel the need to suddenly inject nicknames and your own preferences in a blurb that has achieved significant community consensus?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Administrators frequently edit posted ITN blurbs' wording (addressing all sorts of style and linking issues — most of which aren't even considered at ITN/C — in the process). I do so on a regular basis.  I've received very few complaints over the years, with yours being the first in which my edit was labeled "disgraceful".
 * Fixed now, thankfully. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You could have mentioned that I self-reverted. —David Levy 21:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, perhaps you should participate in the ITN process rather than wholesale re-write the blurb after there's been a consensus on what to post. Particularly when you "Americanised" it to such an extent it became alien to most of the interested audience.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I "Americanised" the blurb by incorporating information reported by numerous British media outlets (including The Oxford Times, the Cambridge News and the BBC)? —David Levy 07:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep. You made a twee headline using nicknames and "editions" etc.  Never mind, it's fixed now, perhaps you could participate in the ITN process rather than wholesale re-write blurbs in future after a consensus has been found.  Or perhaps we shouldn't write blurbs at all and allow you to do that on our behalf? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Now you're referring to language that I copied from verbatim (thereby correcting the erroneous treatment of "The 160th Boat Race" as a proper name). Apparently, I was mistaken in my assumption that the article's introductory sentence was worded appropriately when you posted the item.

I'm no stranger to this page, but I participate in the ITN process mainly by improving blurbs after they go live. Some of them (generally not posted by you, I'll note) slip through with major flaws (such as factual inaccuracies, links to incorrect articles, and especially style errors/inconsistencies). This reflects the simple fact that these discussions rarely focus significant attention on the blurbs' precise wording. Some administrators proofread them before posting, while others (who shall remain nameless) simply copy and paste whatever happens to have been written. So the concept that these blurbs typically are the products of inviolable consensus formulated here simply doesn't reflect reality. Multiple administrators routinely perform substantial revisions to posted blurbs, and our role in the ITN process is no less valid than anyone else's. Like all who take part, there's no "disgrace" in our inability to be infallible. —David Levy 10:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC) You initiated this discussion by writing a "post-posting apology" above and my "disgraceful" blurb change in your very first communication with me regarding the matter.
 * I'm not sure of the point in us discussing a specific blurb here at ITN/C, one, in fact, that was corrected for BritEng, just for you to completely 100% re-write it after I had posted it. That is genuinely problematic, particularly when the original blurb was 100% factually and grammatically accurate, not to mention succinct and in-line with community consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, you "beats" to "beat". And your simultaneous notation of this was the only discussion of the item's wording that occurred here before you posted it. (No one else made any reference to the blurb.) And that's fine, but I stand accused of "disgraceful" tampering with a "blurb that has achieved significant community consensus".

"Completely 100% re-write it"? You're suggesting that I replaced the entire thing? Our standard procedure, backed by years of consensus, is to seek commonality across English varieties when feasible. I did so by inserting information straight from the article that you approved, whose accuracy and notability I verified by consulting reliable sources from the UK. Two editors (you and one other) expressed disapproval of the nicknames' inclusion, so I self-reverted. And yet, you continue to complain about my impudent disregard for the "consensus" silently achieved here.

Again, the blurb wasn't "100% factually and grammatically accurate"; there's no such event as "The 160th Boat Race". You just attributed the wording "the 160th edition of The Boat Race" to me (as though I invented it to "Americanise" the blurb), despite its origin as the first seven words of bold-linked in the item that you posted.

The "consensus" achieved among editors by not mentioning the blurb in any context. —David Levy 18:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC) I await your explanation of how the addition of information from numerous reliable British sources (and the Wikipedia article that you approved for inclusion at ITN) constituted Americanisation. Please also explain why you blamed me for the use of language copied directly from our article's introductory sentence (which I assume you read before posting the item).
 * I'm glad you fixed the multiple problems you introduced by a wholesale re-write of the blurb. There was no need to do this.  At all.  So the only issue you can find is the capitalisation of the word "The"?  But then you change the entire blurb to suit your version?  How curious.  Please don't do that again.  Thanks. (P.S. you'd also benefit from being a little bit less TL;dr, cheers).  Oh, and "there's no such event as "The 160th Boat Race"?  The official website begs to differ.  "by not mentioning the blurb in any context" this is 100% incorrect again, please check above where I note "Have adjusted blurb for BritEng". Now, time for both of us to do something more useful.  You've hopefully learnt something from this. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I noted the English variety issue (and our usual approach in such a circumstance). As I explained, I sought commonality by incorporating information from our article, whose accuracy and notability I verified by consulting reliable sources from the UK. Then two users (including you) opined that such a change was undesirable, so I self-reverted. A short time later, I the NCAA item to eliminate the Americanism "defeats". This is routine maintenance, which rarely results in complaints (and when it does, I address them).

That's a capitalization error. (Note that the official website also contains several instances of "the 160th Boat Race".) The event's formal name is "The BNY Mellon Boat Race", reflecting an ongoing sponsorship agreement.

I linked to and noted that "this was the only discussion of the item's wording that occurred here before you posted it" and "no one else made any reference to the blurb". You just ignored those statements and quoted me out of context. In response to your assertion that the original blurb was backed by "community consensus", I referred to "the 'consensus' achieved among editors by not mentioning the blurb in any context" (emphasis added). Are you suggesting that you represent the community and generate consensus on its behalf?

I've learned to expect immediate hostility if I happen to edit an ITN blurb in a manner not to your liking. —David Levy 19:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC) I've explained why repeatedly.
 * Why did you change the blurb so much? Why did you feel the need to degrade it to include nicknames?  The only thing you could honestly claim to absolutely need to fix would be the modification of a T to a t.  Instead you rephrase it entirely. Sorry, you made several mistakes, and now you know better, that's the most important thing.  "Are you suggesting that you represent the community and generate consensus on its behalf?", don't be silly.  The way ITN/C is that someone suggests a blurb, the support/oppose votes imply that the nomination itself, including the blurb, is either okay, or not okay.  I noted that the blurb needed a minor tweak to be in Brit Eng, and modified it as such.  What you did was to create a completely different and awful American version of a blurb that had no support from anyone anywhere, and actually effectively wheel-warred by modifying my version (and the ITN/C version) on the main page to do so.  And then, thankfully, you reverted most of it.  Please don't wholesale re-write blurbs again, that way we can all get on with better things. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You think that I perceived this as degradation? That I purposely inserted details with the knowledge that others would regard the change as objectionable?

Retaining "The Boat Race" seemed desirable, so I copied the first seven words of that you approved for inclusion at ITN ("The 160th edition of The Boat Race"). I don't understand why you've attributed this language to me (because you've declined my requests for an explanation).

You're mistaken if you believe that a blurb's precise wording typically factors into the "support"/"oppose" votes. Blurbs in terrible shape (again, I'm not referring to those that you post) frequently make it onto the main page. Occasionally, they even show up written in the wrong tense. There is no implied "consensus" for this. Certainly, discussion of blurbs' wording occurs in some instances. In this case, there was a single mention by you.

I noted this above (and even linked to the diff), after which you inexplicably accused me of denying (or overlooking) it.

Again, I found information in our article (which you approved for inclusion at ITN) and verified its presence in reports published by numerous reliable UK sources. I remain baffled as to how its addition "Americanised" the blurb (another claim that I've repeatedly asked you to clarify), but when objections arose, I self-reverted (and for any offense caused to the editor who'd just labeled my good-faith edit "").

Wow. I can't say that I expected that allegation. What reverted administrative action did I reinstate? —David Levy 20:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC) As I've stated repeatedly, those nicknames appear in coverage of the event by countless reliable sources in the UK. Given that fact, how does their inclusion constitute an Americanism? This is what I've been asking you to explain. Simply reiterating that is one is unhelpful.
 * You needlessly changed the blurb, introducing an appalling and inappropriate and unsupported variation of your own preference. Thankfully you appear to have learnt that you shouldn't do that again.  Americanised - introducing nicknames for British University teams, using phrases like "edition" (which may have been in the article, but there was no need to do anything beside turn T to t, if you have no empathy for British English, best to avoid editing these kinds of blurbs altogether).  Now then, we can all move on because many of us have, you just need to remember not to completely rewrite the blurb as added by an admin to your own taste.  FWIW, I'm out of energy now on this.  The bottom line: take more care when editing blurbs that are already on the main page that are clearly outside your comfort zone.  You made it look foolish for some time.  Now feel free to add a few more thousand bytes of refutation or move along and do something helpful.  I won't be continuing here.  Instead, I've created a whole new article about... guess what... (T/t)he Boat Race!  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, retaining "The Boat Race" seemed desirable. It didn't occur to me that you might have approved an article whose introductory sentence contained an English variety error that you recognized but left in place.

One of the things that makes your criticism so disheartening is that I go out of my way to be considerate of English varieties other than mine (and even to seek commonality where the use of American English is appropriate). If we assume that I committed a terrible error in this instance, that doesn't justify your response. Your very first communication with me on this matter was to deem the change "". Other such adjectives have followed. There simply is no need for that type of reaction. You've made some major mistakes when editing ITN, and I've responded only with constructive criticism and assistance.

Move on? You just accused me of wheel-warring.

So you aren't going to explain what reverted administrative action I reinstated? I see. —David Levy 21:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I have started a discussion about adding The Boat Race to WP:ITN/R. Please feel free to comment there on the merits of posting the race every year. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong pull. This is an amateur university sporting event. It is not in any way the top level of competition, and is only open to two teams. The fact that alumni of the two universities pay attention to it does not make it 'culturally significant'. Besides, that's irrelevant. This opens the floodgates for every spurious university sports event (e.g. NCAA, BUCS etc.) which should never get anywhere near ITN. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 23:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is no ordinary "amateur university sporting event"; it is watched by hundreds of thousands in person and millions on TV(including 10% of the UK's population). While we tend to post only the top level of a sport, there is no written requirement that it be so; any event widely covered and followed is valid for posting. 331dot (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's an amateur event, yes, but many international rowers (or perhaps I should say rowers at international level from many countries to make it clearer) apply to Oxford and Cambridge just to be able to take part. It has been going since the 19th century. A crowd measured in the hundreds of thousands watches the race live. It is covered live on the BBC (and has been televised since before World War II) and the main photograph on the front page of The Times on Monday was of an incident in the race. The race is celebrated in the works of PG Wodehouse. No other rowing race (including international competitions) gets this much attention in the UK - and it's not just the alumni of Oxford (of which I am one) and Cambridge who pay attention. A couple of years ago, someone decided to interrupt the race knowing that he would receive significant publicity for doing so. Saying that it is only open to two teams rather misses the point. It is precisely because it is a race between these two university crews that it gets the attention it does. The annual UK universities rowing regatta won't make any splash at all in comparison. BencherliteTalk 07:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Nigerian economy

 * Good news for Nigeria that its economy is growing, but this is certainly a matter of estimates, certainly doesn't reflect any black-market economy, and reminds me of another story we posted three times, Voyager leaving the Solar System. μηδείς (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * When was it posted 3 times? I remember it being struck down 3 times. Nergaal (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I find searching the archives here impossible, but I remember arguing in favor once, and it being posted, then against, and it being posted, and someone saying it was the third time. In any case what we've got here is a declaration by some statistician, not any real hard fact. μηδείς (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak support I learned in school that SAf has the only developed economy in Af, and if Nigeria surpassed it is definitely notable. Nergaal (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nergaal, South Africa certainly isn't a developed economy. The majority of the population live in poverty and it is actually poorer than several other African countries (e.g. Botswana, Libya, Seychelles, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Mauritius). Neljack (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Libya is close to splitting and none of the other countries have a wordwide impact. Nergaal (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * comment im leaning oppose here as its a regional thing, and also moastly just the raw numbers of population. What are on-the-grounds changes here? Highest market cap in its stock exchange?Lihaas (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Suggest change to something like "After rebasing their GDP, Nigeria surpasses South Africa to become Africa's biggest economy." That is the significance of the change. --LT910001 (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See this article: and many others. Have created article on Yemi Kale, the head of Nigerian national bureau of statistics who coordinated this rebase. --LT910001 (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Becoming Africa's largest economy is pretty significant news. I'd also like to echo the fact that the change, however, occurred as result of the rebasing that was implemented in calculating the GDP.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose This had nothing to do with changes in the Nigerian or indeed South African economies. What has happened is that the way GDP is calculated has been altered to include a whole raft of sectors that were formerly excluded.  If you include more businesses it stands to reason the calculated figure is going to increase.  The real story here is that a national government has changed the way it arrives at an official statistic.  Is that really ITN worthy? 87.112.110.28 (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * that's what ive been reading to that the barometers changed. strong oppose we can only compare apples with apples (and not even red with green)Lihaas (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but nominally this is still very important, as this more accurately reflects the actual GDP of the country. If even by a metric China surpassed the US as the world's leading economy, that would be notable; surely this would be the case here, too? This has the potential to alter the spread of aid money, investment by foreign and domestic companies, and may ultimately change the way Nigerians and others perceive the country. --LT910001 (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nnope, it has to be the same barometer.Lihaas (talk) 09:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Should be based on a common measure of GDP, same penalties and boosts for both. --M ASEM (t) 03:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose In all probability, if the latest methodology is correct, it overtook South Africa some time ago. They've just changed their calculations and caught up on the change now. And of course we don't know the soundness of the change in measurement - after all, the Nigerian government presumably has an interest in portraying the country's economy as large. Neljack (talk) 10:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Captain America

 * Oppose I'm not a big fan of "highly anticipated product makes a lot of money" nominations, and since this one isn't an absolute record I don't think it's a very big deal.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 20:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose This is exactly the kind of news we should never post. It's a trivial record in a non-sense category that many have surely never heard of and typical example of a tabloid story. I wonder what will be the next thing for posting from the film industry if we really regress on posting such things. Maybe the highest-grossing film in a single country or the film with the highest box-office earnings to total film length ratio?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A "typical example of a tabloid story" would be celeb X is dating celeb Y. The Wall Street Journal' does not cover tabloid stories. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Taylor. Are we now going to post the record for each month? Unless there's some reason why the April record is particularly important, I will oppose. Neljack (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * April is used as a barometer for the all-important summer movie season. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose even if this is record seats filled, as opposed to ticket revenues, which simply follows from ticket-price inflation, it's less important in the long run than the Nigeria vs SA story. We can revisit this in three months if it surpasses Nemo and Titanic. μηδείς (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * oppose if it needs all the cavats like april then it ought not to be herLihaas (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC) e


 * Oppose posting the record for a specific month. 331dot (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Peter Matthiessen

 * Not sure the awards amount to much, no Pulitzer, no Nobel. One interesting tidbit that is woefully unexplained is the claim that he was working for the CIA.  This is entirely unexplained.  The article is very short of citations on things like his '58 divorce.
 * oppose per above and per TRM's criteria of being top of his feild, those awards are not the top.Lihaas (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yet you support a journalist who wasn't "top of [her] feild"? Perhaps it's time to start disregarding your opinions. (P.S. it's "field"). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Just as soon as we invalidate yours.Lihaas (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Cyclone Ita

 * Support - significant natural disaster, article quality is adequate already (but by all means continue to improve it if you can.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support; notable disaster with wide effects. 331dot (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support decent article, worth bringing it to ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support and marking ready. Impact is local but significant and encyclopedic, will affect Solomon Islands for years to come. μηδείς (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support This has been leading the news here in New Zealand. Sadly the death toll is likely to rise, with dozens of people missing. Neljack (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Luis Guillermo Solís

 * Support ITN/R although I don't care for the blurbs. I did have to look to the fourth paragraph to see that the runnoff only happened yesterday, when I opened the article I was wondering why it would be ITN if the election was in February. The election should be linked and bolded in the blurb however, not the president. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

MH370 Ping Detected

 * Oppose everything I have read says they hear something but don't know if it is MH370, and that all recorders (including those that are on ships) also use the same frequency. Unless it is verified to actually be MH370, it shouldn't be posted.  Even the blurb posted doesn't say that they actually found it, just that it is on the same frequency. --kelapstick(bainuu) 18:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose the only news story to report on this from a couple of weeks back is the discovery of the wreckage/black box. Absolutely no point in posting speculation.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What the hell is wrong with all of you? Why are your standards so unreasonably strict for ITN inclusion--except when it comes to cricket tournaments and horse races? Is the entire month of APril Opposite day or something? Because otherwise, barring an extended and unfunny April Fool's Joke, there is no possible explanation for your idiotic oppose votes. (Sorry for my rudeness, but I've been having some trouble with my real life.) Jinkinson   talk to me  19:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't even know if this black box discovery is a black box, let alone that of MH0370. If and when it is proven to be so, we nominate and post the discovery of the remains of the aircraft.  By the way, if you're having a bad time in real life, this probably isn't the most relaxing and inspirational forum for you.  Good luck.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My opposition is because there is no story, they hear a ping, they don't know what it is. Until they find the black box, which they haven't, there is nothing to post. Until they have something confirmed this is no different than the dozens of unrelated floating things that they have found over the last few weeks.--kelapstick(bainuu) 19:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with the Cricket comment, but the major, encyclopedic issue is the loss of the plane itself, not posting every follow-up. If we posted this, would we also post when the first wreckage was retrieved?  Then when the search for bodies was called off?  ITN is not a newspaper or a 24 hour news network.  It's a place to post encyclopedically significant articles. And cricket. μηδείς (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose for now - iff wreckage is found, then we should seriously consider posting for a third time. Yes, a third posting is probably unprecedented, but it would be a clear case of WP:IAR applying. Mjroots (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose until it is determined that this is indeed from the plane, which is not certain yet. We don't need to post every milestone in the search. 331dot (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] ICC World Twenty20

 * Support once the other item is updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose until there is more text, preferably including a description of the final game (probably best done at 2014 ICC World Twenty20 Finals for men). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 15:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not everyone is knowledgeable about the subject of articles that might need fixing, or has a free moment to do so. 331dot (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you've got time to complain it hasn't got enough text, you've got enough time to fix it.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * C'mon Nugluts, you know as well as I do, there are many folks who just comment on Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That is an incredibly inaccurate comment. It takes all of 30 seconds to comment here - fixing an article takes far more time than that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 35 seconds? Seems that common sense prevailed.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 16:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I may do so, but I am certainly not obligated to do so in order to oppose. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But the Finals article isn't in the blurb so isn't part of this nomination....? And the "blurbed" articles have plenty of text according to the ITN criteria... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The text should be added either way. (As you like to point out, there are no official requirements so I am certainly allowed to judge an article as inadequately updated IMO.) I was merely suggesting the best place to do so, which would of course then be used in the blurb instead of the other article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So you oppose the blurb then, the articles linked therein? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion. I am opposed to the currently nominated articles based on lack of text.  that can be fixed by improving either the nominated articles or the final game article.  I am not opposed to posting the tournament article if it is improved first. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * strong oppose this is not the top tournament in cricket. We have the proper WC and we could probably post the leading annual test team (which is the top of cricket)Lihaas (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the top tournament in one of only three formats of the world game (and on ITN/R). We definitely should not be posting the leading "annual test team" (whatever that means) as it changes based on Test results and there's no such concept.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Question how many cricket stories do we have every year? By comparison, I know baseball has one each year. Nergaal (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Per ITNR, approximately three, depending on the calendar. Which is fine considering the general population who watch cricket vs those who watch baseball.  And this isn't an ITNR suggestion, it's ITNC, so it's really irrelevant how many others we may have posted.  And yes, this is an ITNR already.  If you wish to discuss the number of cricket articles listed at ITNR, I suggest you do it at ITNR's talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Added some text to the Womans page. Don't have time to do anymore right now, but if no one beats me to it I will do the same to the Mens in about five hours time. AIR corn (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you - that is the kind of update I am looking for. Update the lead (it is still future tense and has nothing about teh tournament itself) and likewise update the men's article and you'll have my support. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Got to run again, but it should be ready enough to post now. AIR corn (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Aircorn. I can now support the articles on qaulity grounds (notability is pre-established by ITNR). --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. It is certainly the highest level of 20/20 cricket, which is certainly a big deal in South Asia and is probably a bigger deal in the English speaking cricket countries than a lot of cricket traditionalists care to admit.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted. BencherliteTalk 14:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Grand National 2014

 * Weak support article in reasonable condition but bare URLs in the refs need to be fixed and the SPs seem to be missing from the first table. Also, not sure where the silks are referenced.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've run reflinks and added a source for the colours. --LukeSurlt c 11:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Starting prices added and referenced. --LukeSurlt c 12:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - article is in acceptable condition, update is of good quality. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps 'In horse racing, Richard Newland's Pineau de Re, ridden by Leighton Aspell, wins the Grand National '? Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  13:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not many opinions offered but this is ITN/R and there are no objections, so I'm marking it ready. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted - since this was overlooked by other admins, I am posting despite offering an opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaddeusB (talk • contribs)

[Posted] RD: Kumba Ialá

 * Support former head of state. Article is in a reasonable state too which makes a lovely change.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Certainly had a significant impact on his country, given the instability of his tenure - culminating in his overthrow by a military coup. However, there are some negative statements in the article that need to be either cited or removed - for instance, the bits on financial mismanagement and imprisoning opposition activists. Neljack (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you tag the offending statements to facilitate them being fixed? --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Neljack (talk) 06:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And I've found sources for them, so this can be ignored now. Neljack (talk) 11:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support as a former head of state, but the lead states that he converted to Islam and changed his name to Mohamed Ialá Embaló; should the listing be that? 331dot (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose not-quite one-term president, not prime minister, of a rather small state with nothing besides his being deposed of any notability. μηδείς (talk) 02:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - although this has been marked ready by Lihaas, the lead still sucks, which is why I have refrained from supporting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What changes do you seek? Im nore sure what it needs.Lihaas (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Per the big yellow maintenance tag, "This article's lead section may not adequately summarize key points of its contents." The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * User:ThaddeusB, ]better?Lihaas (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not explicitly opposing, but I would expect a subject of this level of importance to have a lead roughly twice as long as it is at current. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I really don't know what to add for the sae of it, but it has more than the requisite update ethat most/many posted ones do lately. Feel free to add itLihaas (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The lead should summarize the entire article. There is current zero on his early life, zero on his pre-presidential political career, and basically zero on what he did as president. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * tHE CONTROVERSY around it is there...don't understand why one article is penalized on his technicalities when the section is updated. (ad his presiendeitla period IS sumarisedLihaas (talk) 09:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Considering I am not opposing, I don't see how you can say I am penalizing it. I certainly I am not obligated to support something.  (I am currently neutral and gave a way I would move to support.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not accusing you personally ;)Lihaas (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Posted - since (apparently) no other admin has looked at this, I am posting this per consensus despite my personal opinion on the article's lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaddeusB (talk • contribs)
 * LIKE...and good man. When you run for Next Wikipedia presidential election youve got my voteLihaas (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Afghan presidential election 2014

 * Comment This will very likely go to a runoff, to be held in May. So I think this nomination is rather premature. Neljack (talk) 10:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, even if there is a winner on the first round, it will be several days before we have results. Neljack (talk) 10:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Enceladus

 * I would be willing to support this if more mainstream news sources were shown to demonstrate that this is widely in the news. 331dot (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You want it? You got it.  Jinkinson   talk to me  19:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I do support as this seems a significant scientific discovery, with wide coverage. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak support because I'm just waiting for some "clever" Wikipedian(s) to yell at us all "DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE" despite publication in what we normally call reliable sources. (Having said that, there's a maintenance template smack bang at the top of the target article, although it may be a colour that's amenable to some posting admins, I think it would be nice to resolve it). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Rambling on a bit, are we? Abductive  (reasoning) 00:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * HYPE, HYPE, HYPE!! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong support I think this is the first time there is a clear report of liquid extraterrestrial water. Nergaal (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - finding liquid water outside of Earth is certainly notable. Article is in good shape, excluding the lead, but the update could use some expansion. Hopefully both can be addressed before posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Now fixed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Good stuff this is. Received wide coverage in the scientific community of its type. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Appear to be peer-reviewered confirmation. --M ASEM  (t) 20:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. The debate over the existence of liquid water on Enceladus has finally been resolved, it seems. The existence of the water was first hypothesized in the 1980s (if I recall correctly), so this result is not completely unexpected. In fact, there are enough preceding discoveries (plumes and so on) that this is almost stale. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

RD: Anja Niedringhaus

 * Explantions as to why you feel an event is notable enough to post are almost always helpful. Like all of Wikipedia, ITN is not a vote. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb, barely even notable enough for RD in my opinion as part of a Pulitzer Prize-winning team. (P.S. Knuckles invented a genre of music, this lady was a journalist who did a good job but was by no means recognised as top of her field, unless you can provide RS to state otherwise).... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose The recent death equivalent of missing-white woman syndrome.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. RD is for deaths of notable people, which I'm not sure this individual is.  A blurb would be for persons at the tip-top of their field or of worldwide significance, which isn't applicable here. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - full blurbs are also used for cases where the death itself is a big story. Whether this story is big or not is debatable, but it certainly is a case where the death is the primary story (as oppose to the person's career). --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support She is fairly notable as is her death by itself. Not enough for a blurb, but enough for RD. Iamstupido (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support  — Although Niedringhaus has not been a household name, the assassination of a veteran and courageous female photojournalist, of European and American repute, has received extensive global coverage and merits mention in RD. Sca (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * PS: She's on German Wiki's version of Recent Deaths, Kürzlich Verstorbene. Sca (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * PPS: so what? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, why consider anyone else's opinion? Sca (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's entirely irrelevant to this Wikipedia, that's my point. She was German so presumably the German language Wikipedia feels a greater affiliation toward her.  She still fails to meet the RD criteria, wholesale.  Period.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Niedringhaus was German, but she worked for the U.S. wire service Associated Press for 12 years and was shot in company with Canadian-born AP reporter Kathy Gannon. She is thus not "irrelevant" to English Wiki. Further, if you Google Anje Niedringhaus and you'll find scores of tributes to her work and life from people in the profession. Her murder is a commentary on the Afghanistan debacle, and a world event. Sca (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And she was neither top of her field nor will her death in any way have any effect. Hence she doesn't qualify for RD under this Wikipedia's RD criteria.  (And checking your link, it appears that Niedringhaus is most certainly not in that section of the German Wikipedia homepage... Oops.) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, just like on en.wikipedia, that's a changing page. (Actually a recent change appears to have made it more fleeting there, see here).  In any event, she was in that section: Hauptseite/Archiv/4. April 2014. Not saying that German WP's featuring her death is either here or there, but your parenthetical remark certainly is neither nor. ---Sluzzelin  talk  01:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Clearly indicates that the German ticker-tape approach necessitates a much lower standard for inclusion on the main page. Cheers!  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per The Rambling Man.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 14:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support for RD since we've got the space, and posting would not be bumping anyone, I think she's just notable enough, and there's just enough interest, that we can afford to list her. μηδείς (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sad story, but she's not sufficiently notable to be listed. Jehochman Talk 16:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * support shes certainly in the news.Lihaas (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And doesn't meet any of the RD criteria, so what's your point? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Whats the name of this section? ITN = ???
 * At any rate, you have reasons and I have mine. You cannot pick and choose what is acceptable/.Lihaas (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither can you; please review the RD criteria and state how it is applicable to this person. Just being "in the news" has never been enough to post something here, something which you should be aware of by now. 331dot (talk) 02:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, for a death there are two possible reasons to post: existing notability (as defined by RD criteria), or the death being a major news story for some reason. Arguing the death is a major news story is certainly a valid opinion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is, but it's not entirely clear that's what Lihaas did, they just said it is "in the news". 331dot (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, the criteria are a little more specific than that, the story needs to have "a major international impact that affects current events", which it didn't at all. It was just the tragic death of a white European female reporter in Afghanistan, who joins Category:Journalists killed while covering the War in Afghanistan (2001–present).  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

ZunZuneo

 * Oppose no real noteworthiness and certainly not ITN-worthy, but may squeeze a DYK out of it. If you're quick.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's no surprise that the US government is trying to influence Cuban society or politics.  Not really a top headline story, either. 331dot (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * DYK – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Brendan Eich resignation

 * What does this have to do with British Smog? Has Eich left to form a company with that name? μηδείς (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * um, cars look like they're covered in rust? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose CEO of company that is losing market share resigns - not exactly a great shock. And it's hardly one of the biggest or most important companies around. Neljack (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I haven't seen wide news coverage of this; as Neljack said this isn't one of the biggest or most important companies, either(to warrant noting changes in their leadership). 331dot (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's because he gave money to impede gay rights, and Mozilla foolishly hired him. Then a social media firestorm rose up. I'm not saying it needs to be posted, but the blurb would need to explain why this worthless POS needed to be fired. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose minor business figure who cocked up. Not ITN-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support the guy that built Javascript (used on more webpages than flash) is, uh, "retired" over a political row. Impact is the millions of people that use Mozilla products, encyclopedic content is the technical accomplishments of the man (JVscipt, renowned programming talent) as well as the political row that fueled his opponents (Proposition_8), and notability is attested to by international sources.  I'd understand if people didn't want this posted for personal or political reasons, but this checks all the boxes for ITN.128.214.198.4 (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure how it impacts us who use Firefox, I haven't seen any changes. The EV should really relate to the story itself, not about what the man has done in a previous life.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The guy resigns - we get a new header font! Must be some kinda conspiracy here? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

2014 British smog
Winds from Africa bring Sahara Desert sand to Britain, this mixes with pollution causing a smog, people with breathing problems are urged to stay indoors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lerdthenerd (talk • contribs)


 * Lerdthenerd Is there an article you are nominating? You didn't think to one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Even if there was an article, I'd oppose. So we've had a bit of crappy mist for a few days, and a few more people have whinged about it.  Now move on.  It's nothing compared to China, to the pea-soupers of yesteryear.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Saharan dust seems to go everywhere.  Having it turn up in unusual places is a surprisingly common event.  Here in Texas, over twice the distance from north Africa when compared to Britain, we see it on a semi-regular basis. --Allen3 talk 21:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Cough, cough "Fog everywhere. Fog up the river, where it flows among green aits and meadows; fog down the river, where it rolls defiled among the tiers of shipping and the waterside pollutions of a great (and dirty) city." Only 160 years too late, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Err.. usually I expect to see an article somewhere here.. --hydrox (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Well they would have that in that there London, wouldn't they. Slow news day fodder.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Copernicus Programme
ESA's Sentinel 1 from this Earth observation program is scheduled to be launched April 3rd. Nergaal (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Why aren't we using the templates? Where are the references, the update status, the blurb, the nominator/updater names?  C'mon.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

2014 Fort Hood shooting

 * Oppose Relatively high profile (as most of these seem to be) but ultimately nothing will change and this is just another day, another shooting incident. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Mass shootings on military bases aren't a common occurrence, but I do agree with TRM's comment. 331dot (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - sadly events like these are quite usual in the US now and it has only recieved relative coverage.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak support The apathy of the two above editors makes me sad. I know my support comes slightly from my desire to use Wikipedia to right great wrongs (after all, we can with SOPA protests) even though it seems we are doomed to being a nation of gun violence. It doesn't really fit as tendentious editing, though, since this is a verifiable act, which verifiably happened. The fact that this was a military base, and the site of a previous massive shooting, has made news coverage of it significant enough (I think) to warrant my weak support. As to BabbaQ's comments, I don't understand what is meant by "relative coverage". It's being covered across the pond, and they're investigating the shooter, not just covering the shooting itself. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * None of us know all the facts but allowing a man suffering from depression access to weapons seems to be plain absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Tell that to Wayne LaPierre and the craven politicians he has cowed. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well you'd need to tell the American voters to do that, not me. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I haz a sad :( – Muboshgu (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose — Agree with first and third comments. Sca (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It is a tragic situation but have to agree that in the larger scheme of things, this is not as significant as other past shooting events in the US which involve civilian losses. To note to BabbaQ what this represents should not be considered usual for the US (compared with events like suicide bombings and attacks in Middle Eastern countries), but the unfortunately frequency of recent years means that not every gun-related attack on the US should be included as ITN. --M ASEM (t) 14:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, perhaps if the US can go without a mass shooting for a month then ITN should post that. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Triple murders aren't that uncommon and they don't tend to be nominated when they happen in other countries. Neljack (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, fine. You guys want something unusual about a shooting that kills four people, then I think I have an observation that will meet even your ridiculously stringent standards--the fact that this happened in the same place as another shooting in 2009. This is clearly not something that happens very often, even in the US. Also, I might note that the absurdity of the whole "other stuff happened before" argument becomes clear if you imagine people saying it when Hitler invaded Russia--"Oppose. Napoleon invaded Russia too, so this must not be a big deal." Jinkinson   talk to me  22:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you have to go Godwin so quickly? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That it has happened before isn't a reason not to post it if it is significant enough, but nor is it a reason to post it. To take your rather odd analogy, nobody would think that the significance of Hitler's invasion of Russia lay in the fact that Napoleon had done it before - it would have been no less significant if Napoleon had never invaded Russia. So I'm mystified as to the relevance of there having been a shooting at this place before. Neljack (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the Hitler-Napoleon analogy was a poor choice on my part. All I was trying to say was that there are many events that have happened throughout history that are significant, but not unprecedented. I was also trying to explain that I thought a similar event taking place in the same place within five years was a somewhat unusual occurrence, to say the least, which further highlights that it was confusing of me to cite this analogy. To try to clarify: I think that other similar things happening before doesn't render something unremarkable enough to exclude from ITN, and I also think that two such events happening in the same location using guns bought from the same store renders an event more noteworthy than it would otherwise be. Jinkinson   talk to me  05:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please explain why Wikipedia's ITN page has some bizarre sort of affirmative action policy such that earthquakes in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and changes in Japan's whaling laws get featured, but when a murderer kills three people and then himself, it's dismissed as routine because it's in the US? Is the idea that so much American stuff gets featured we have to feature mostly non-American stuff to make up for treating the US so preferentially? Or is there a "Who can be the biggest anti-American douchebag" contest underway on Wikipedia of which I am unaware? Also, I stand by my (admittedly unclear) point that simply because more significant shootings have happened in the past doesn't strip this one of all of its notability. Jinkinson  talk to me  23:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Jinkinson, I don't see it as affirmative action - I wouldn't regard a shooting that kills 3 people as ordinarily being news of international significance worthy of featuring on ITN, wherever it occurred. I think the stories you mentioned are more significant. The Chilean earthquake: killed more people than this shooting, and then you've got all the damage, a tsunami warning and mass evacuation of 900,000 people, an escape of more than 300 prisoners, and the fact it was a very large earthquake (8.2 on the Richter scale). The whaling case was a binding judgment from the International Court of Justice on a highly controversial international dispute in which there has been considerable public interest and publicity in many countries. I don't see a shooting that kills three people as being of comparable international significance to those stories, however much publicity they may (quite understandably) get in the country where they occur. Neljack (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Remember the 2009 shooting in Finland? People were wildly supporting it at the time when there were only four confirmed dead. It ended up having 6 people dead. – H T  D  23:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm American and I don't think this is significant enough to be posted. Shootings with several casualties happen frequently, often in the same location. We can't post them all; this is not a murder ticker. If you can demonstrate that this was a top headline story around the world, you might get somewhere, but I haven't seen that.  Neljack gave a good explanation of the rationale behind the posting of the stories you mentioned; that's the kind of things we are looking for, in addition to news coverage. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with you, except for "Shootings with several casualties happen frequently, often in the same location." Unless we're talking about war zones. Heck even petty thievery that involves "Shootings with several casualties" don't happen at the exact same place. True, this wasn't a "top headline", nor is the cricket tournament above, but CNN International and BBC World News devoted a lot of time to this breaking news event, preempting some shows, on the day of the shooting. – H T  D  19:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission

 * Weak oppose. I am seeing some worldwide coverage of this(though generally not as a/the top story) but IMO this boils down to essentially a local story; a US court interpreting US law. I don't think we would post similar rulings from other nations. 331dot (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Same reason as 331dot - I know in terms of politics within the US this is huge, but that's a very minor segment overall. --M ASEM (t) 22:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with 331dot. Electoral finance is an issue in many nations, but I doubt we would post developments relating to it in any other nation. The ruling is interesting but hardly surprising, in light of Citizens United. Neljack (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - national news.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is an event only relating to a single country. 128.227.249.115 (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As TRM states below, that is not a valid reason to oppose this; many stories here relate to only one nation. 331dot (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment in Jayron32's current absence, I feel duty bound to remind those voting above that the instructions say do not "complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." That is all. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I don't oppose this because it relates to one nation or a particular nation, I oppose it because I don't think this is a story of wide importance outside of the US. 331dot (talk) 13:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Right. So you do oppose it because you don't see it as important outside of a single country.  Just as the instructions remind people not to.  -- Jayron  32  20:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Jayron32, there is a distinction between opposing a nomination because it only relates to one country and opposing it because it lacks international significance or interest. If we didn't apply a threshold of international significance/interest it's not clear to me how we would choose between all the stories of national significance/interest that are happening in the nearly 200 countries in the world. Neljack (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Jayron32, that isn't why I opposed; I did not say "this only deals with the US so I oppose", I said "this does not have notability worldwide so I oppose". There is a difference. 331dot (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Getting some press, but overall a relatively minor event. -- Jayron  32  20:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose this is on the borderline of what should and should not be posted. But given the total biennial contribution limit of $117,000 for all political donations to parties and candidates has been thrown out, and political contributors like George Soros and the Koch brothers, for example, can now easily donate $100 Million or more to one candidate if they like, I think calling this a minor event is inaccurate.  I suspect the billion dollars spent in the last cycle will probably more than double in the next.  But we are not a crystal ball, and the ruling comports with the trend over the last two decades, and doesn't contradict the first amendment, so I weakly oppose. μηδείς (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The limits for individual candidates and parties have not been struck down (though Thomas in his concurrence said he would); you can't give $100 million to one candidate's campaign. 331dot (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Chile earthquake

 * Support Significant, large, regionally notable, geologically notable. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I know quakes of large magnitude often get posted, but given with quick preparedness much of the threatened coastlines were evacuated and some damage on land, this really isn't that strong a quake to consider. But that said, I see the tsunami warnings are still up for some coasts, and in the night hours we might see more reports of death/damage, so this may get worse. But if all that remains is the 5 deaths, after the warnings are taken down, then I don't think this is really significant.  --M ASEM  (t) 05:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait. I've been working on this article, and I tend to agree with User:Masem; unless the damage turns out to be much higher, I would rather not see this posted. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support there are 1 or 2 earthquakes of 8+ magnitude per year. Nergaal (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support BBC News are reporting that Chile declares disaster in quake-hit regions.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Per that article, "The government said the declaration of a disaster in the regions of Tarapaca, Arica and Parinacota was aimed at "avoiding instances of looting and disorder"." - eg preventative, not for immediate emergency response. I would still argue this really wasn't much on the larger scale. --M ASEM (t) 15:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Total death toll is six, and it hit 100 km offshore of a relatively uninhabited region. Unless this turns out to have a bigger impact then is currently apparent, I don't think that reaches the significance threshold. Yes it's a big earthquake, but if it didn't do much then the encyclopaedic value is low. I'm willing to reassess if more facts become available. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Suppport an 8.2 earthquake with a 7-foot tsunami and at least half a dozen dead would be a shoe in anywhere else. I am reminded of the sign on the newsroom wall reported by John Maxwell Hamilton in Hold the Press: "One Englishman is a story. Ten Frenchmen is a story. One hundred Germans is a story. One thousand Indians is a story. Nothing ever happens in Chile." μηδείς (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not singling out Chile, only the fact that while it was a 8.2 mag quake, it happened offshore and thanks to rapid response by the various regions it would have affected, most of the danger to human life was averted. Per this CNN, even three of the deaths were from just heart attacks, not directly from damage from the quake, and most of the human-structure damage were to 2500 low quality homes. That's not really a huge loss of human life or financial damage. All tsunami warnings are now cancelled and while they did see 6 and 7-foot waves on some shores, these were mostly evacuated or not populated to begin with. If the same quake happened, say, near California but the same preparedness occurred to minimal life and damage, I still wouldn't recommend it for posting. --M ASEM (t) 16:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would expect a better update. At present the article is very stubby (lots of sections, but 1-2 sentences in each.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support While the death toll is low, the earthquake itself was huge. This has also gotten plenty of media coverage. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Posted - article is now improved. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment A 7.x quake just occurred in the same area. Might need to adjust the blurb to mention this aftershock. --M ASEM (t) 03:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Chilean authorities have declared a tsunami warning for the whole country, because of this 7.8 aftershock. El Pichilemino (talk) 03:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Hope somebody gets to see this. I think it would be good if the main picture could be changed to File:Gobernación Provincial de Iquique ayuda a familias damnificadas por terremotos.jpg, which pictures the governor of Iquique visiting victims of the quake and is, up to the moment, the best picture available for free to illustrate the article IMO. Küñall (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

ICD-10 delayed again

 * Oppose Sure it's used by lots of countries, but this is just a decision by one of those countries to defer implementing it. Doesn't change anything for the other countries or the WHO, who produce it. Neljack (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Also the blurb should say that it is deferred in the United States - this obviously doesn't defer it in other countries; it should also refer to "United States President Barack Obama", rather than just "President Obama" Neljack (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No coverage of this in mainstream news. The only source given is by the group promoting this change. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Possible STAP fraud

 * Support From what I see in the sources the evidence is there, so it would be fair to post (shit happens). Brandmeistertalk  15:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose less opposed now than I was to posting the original stories--not the kind of retraction big enough for a front page. Maybe just go back and revdel the whole thing?
 * Support, since it was given prominence on Wikipedia's front page, this of course should be given the same prominence. And let this be a lesson for all of you; don't believe the hype. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Since that was published in Nature, it was reasonable to believe. Even after we posted the notorious faster-than-light neutrino anomaly. Brandmeistertalk  08:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It looked fishy to me at the time. Basically any startling result (arsenic life, remember that one? is guaranteed to be scientific fraud or just plain incompetence. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, you are not smarter than Nature on average. Sometimes science does make astonishing leaps forward, and sometimes mistakes/fraud occur - there is no way to reliable say which is which. If we refrain from posting anything that might be disputed, we would never post anything at all. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That is why I did not actually oppose the first nomination. I had no evidence. I have opposed other things where I had the knowledge and some sources. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think there are several points that are important to note here: (1) the findings are subject to appeal, which Dr Obokata apparently intends to pursue; (2) there is another investigation underway, by the editors of Nature, to determine whether the paper should be retracted; (3) only some of the charges were upheld and it only relates to some of the research; (4) the committee did not find that the falsification was intentional; (5) the committee did not make any inquiry or finding on whether the STAP cells were in fact created; (6) another researcher has just claimed to have replicated her results. See this Guardian article and the report itself.


 * All in all, I am not convinced that things are sufficiently clear at this point to post. In particular, I am concerned that it is premature to post this before the appeal or the other investigation has been completed and that the blurb might give a misleading impression of what has (and has not) been concluded, since a sufficiently nuanced treatment would be impossible in the concise sentence required. These misgivings are heightened by the BLP implications, given the serious nature of such findings for the professional reputation and career of the scientist. Neljack (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I say it's 100% fraud. Anybody have the guts to sue me? Abductive  (reasoning) 00:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Abductive, you really shouldn't be saying that given that you are talking about a BLP subject. Neljack (talk) 05:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

2014 General Motors recall

 * Oppose mass recalls are commonplace, Toyota did it en-mass a while ago. Not newsworthy, and not sure why the blurb targets Barra?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose much better for DYK, a matter of personal inconvenience rather than historical importance. μηδείς (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless Barra ends up in a jail or GM is somehow sanctioned. Brandmeistertalk  18:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've reworded the blurb to exclude mention of Barra. I hope the new one is more to your (i.e. everyone reading this) liking. Jinkinson   talk to me  19:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've just checked, there was an even larger recall, by Ford in 2009, when about 14 million vehicles were recalled (reportedly, the largest recall in automotive history). Brandmeistertalk  19:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (Begin sarcasm) Exactly right, The Rambling Man, mass recalls happen all the time, which is why, when Toyota recalled 6.67 million of its vehicles, as you alluded to above, we didn't create an article on it. Or even if we did, we certainly didn't feature that article on ITN. Because if we did, we would see a template on the article's talk page saying, "A news item involving 2009–11 Toyota vehicle recalls was featured on Wikipedia's main page in the In the news section on 30 January 2010." So obviously, just because another major car manufacturer recalls 6.26 million cars doesn't mean that's newsworthy. (End sarcasm) Jinkinson   talk to me  20:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you placed this indented comment in the incorrect location. Either way, I still don't think it's ITN worthy, nor do the two other editors you've omitted from your mini-rant.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - this is a highly notable business story that has been among the top business stories for months. True, it is a slow moving story and so no single point jumps out as "let's post now", but the story is quite clearly important.  This is probably the best chance yet to post it, so, considering the total impact of the story not just this part, I think it is a clear case to "support". --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Until I see how this compares with the biggest recalls in India and China. HiLo48 (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is off the back of a previous, much bigger recall, which (unless I'm mistaken) we didn't post and was far more significant as it involved actual casualties. Black Kite (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that Thaddeus has a very good reasoning on this one, but it's still not clear when this story will end and what will be its ultimate effects. I'd say that the problem here is when to cut the line and post it on the main page. Maybe it's better to see first if the number of 6 million cars along with the other effects for now mean something compared to other cases in the industry. We had a similar nomination relating Toyota few years ago, but I don't remember if we posted it then.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment There's now a new recall for ~870,000 various Chrysler SUVs, and while I can't give a link as I'm only seeing the story on twitter feeds, the US DOT is going to be auditing the NHTSA over these recalls (specifically the GM one as the instigator). There might be a singlular larger ITN/C story here. --M ASEM (t) 16:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The Fermi paradox has been solved

 * Brains - We need to confirm the paper's authors have not had their brains consumed by Zombies before we can publish. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Pants - are you sure that's not the Femmy Paradox? This encyclopedia is pants. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait until the Zombie apocalypse actually starts. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Methanosarcina

 * support as in hthe news and punny for April fools.Lihaas (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * What does "gasy" mean? Is it supposed to be "gassy"? Neljack (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Or is it a pun I've failed to pick up on? Neljack (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a typo. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose To me it makes us look like click-baiting sites that take research findings and turn them into provocative headlines. Sorry. (The journal article in question is here, for anyone else looking for it.) wctaiwan (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you oppose the story or just the April 1 blurb? --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the story would be below the usual standards for significance were it not for the April Fools potential, but I'm not an ITN/C regular, so I'm not sure if my assessment is accurate. wctaiwan (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 *  Oppose Weak oppose to neutral, not because of April 1st, but it appears rather speculative. --Marianian(talk) 03:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Like all research, it is backed by facts (now explained in the article). Of course it is only a proposed theory at this point - whether it is widely accepted will not be known for a while (like all research). --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If it has something going for it, I would accept the alternative "regular" blurb. Looking back at the heated discussion in 2011, WP:AFMP never worked well with the WP:ITN bit. --Marianian(talk) 03:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Even if it's not speculative. There have been many theories on the event that caused Permian–Triassic extinction event. It is one of the many theories floating around. The theory needs to be more credible and should have gained more acceptance from the research and the scientific community than others. Having one more theory and "In the News" candidate doesn't make it ITN worthy. I would suggest posting it only when it becomes more credible than others. However, the article is definitely making the news around the world.  Regards,   theTigerKing   19:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, this nom was based on merits not joke qualities, so I'm striking teh April 1 blurb and leaving it open. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support firstly because it is an interesting story about an overlooked important stage in Earth's history, and secondly, because such hypothetical scenarios can never be confirmed without a time-machine (i.e. any other alternative will not be any less of a speculative hypothesis). Nergaal (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

[Possible April Fool's Item?] Rings of Chariklo
''Note: item is technically 1 day stale, but I am bringing it to the top for possible 1-day-only usage. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It was first added and expanded by . — kwami (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak support the article isn't the greatest I've ever read, and relies on some "insider knowledge" to get the best from it, but it's adequate and the subject is reasonably notable, although not that much in the news. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support as totally cool an unexpected scientific first. μηδείς (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak support A unexpected result as I read the sources but can be important. --M ASEM (t) 15:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, too bad, I've just seen this one. Great story but it just became stale. --Tone 19:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * DYK, as a backup scenario, should work. --Tone 19:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps replace one of the slightly newer items w\this quirky story in the spirit of April Fools? Something along the lines of "An asteroid is found to have rings."--ThaddeusB (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: what would be the post-April 1st blurb? --Marianian(talk) 02:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It presumably would be removed after April 1 as "stale" (it is 1 day older than current oldest story). That said, the template blurb was not suggested for April 1 purposes.--ThaddeusB (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, I can't personally see it as being marked as a April Fool's item if the template blurb looks normal. --Marianian(talk) 03:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See conversation above - it was supported but a tiny bit late to be posted. I decided to "revive" it as an April 1 nom, possibly with a punchier blurb ("An asteroid is found to have rings." was suggested).  It is a pretty "unbelievable" (but true) story either way, which traditionally has been the point of April Fools mainpage items. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It might just be me, but it doesn't look April Fools' like, and if it indeed doesn't it may fail the freshness criteria. --Marianian(talk) 03:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)